From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup |
Date: | 2021-11-19 10:10:46 |
Message-ID: | 5d51a9cf-8f2e-a854-424f-001f0a260a8b@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.11.21 21:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why is this different from the half-dozen
> other fsync-error cases in the same file? Why, if fsync failure
> here is so catastrophic, is it okay to just return a normal failure
> code when tar_close doesn't even get to this point because of some
> earlier error? At the very least it seems like it'd be preferable
> to do the exit(1) at the caller level.
>
> The addition of the exit(1) seems to have been intentional in
> 1e2fddfa3, so cc'ing Peter for comment.
That commit addressed the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_receivewal
and pg_recvlogical, which are long-running daemon processes, so this
change was analogous to the server-side changes at the time. I don't
know what the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_basebackup should be, so
calls that are only reachable from pg_basebackup are currently being
handled differently.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-11-19 10:17:50 | Re: Frontend error logging style |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-19 10:09:32 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |