| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Floris Bos / Maxnet <bos(at)je-eigen-domein(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2 |
| Date: | 2009-06-09 18:50:59 |
| Message-ID: | 25575.1244573459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> It doesn't. But what I don't trust, and the *first* place I'd look for
> problems, is whether the OS flushes *all* dirty buffers to disk in the
> event the application gets killed.
Why wouldn't you trust it? The sort of thing you seem to be thinking
about would require tracking which process(es) wrote each dirty buffer
and then going back and dropping selected dirty buffers when a process
exits abnormally. I can hardly imagine any OS wishing to do that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich) | 2009-06-09 18:59:28 | Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-09 18:44:15 | Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in |