Re: Linux 2.6.6 also

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.6 also
Date: 2004-05-12 22:57:46
Message-ID: 29692.1084402666@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> But the change highlights one point: the order in which file blocks are
> written to disk is undefined. Theoretically the wal checkpoint record
> could be on the platter, but the preceeding pages were not written.
> Is that case handled by the wal replay code?

We don't care, unless of course the kernel returns claiming that fsync
is done when it's not all done yet.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-05-12 23:54:57 Re: threads stuff/UnixWare
Previous Message Shachar Shemesh 2004-05-12 21:54:19 Re: Probably security hole in postgresql-7.4.1