From: | flyusa2010 fly <flyusa2010(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: disk caching for writing log |
Date: | 2010-12-05 06:30:35 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=6+b3AgzOnDG5vSQ=5PN03cd5a+AFSzotdEyno@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, i mean disk may lie to os.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> On 12/03/2010 06:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> On 03.12.2010 13:49, flyusa2010 fly wrote:
>>
>>> When writing log, dbms should synchronously flush log to disk. I'm
>>> wondering, if it is possible that the logs are in disk cache, while the
>>> control is returned to dbms again, so dbms thinks logs are persistent on
>>> disk. In this case, if the disk fails, then there's incorrectness for
>>> dbms
>>> log writing, because the log is not persistent, but dbms considers it is
>>> persistent!
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean. The method we use to flush the WAL to disk
>> should not be fallible to such failures, we wait for fsync() or
>> fdatasync() to return before we assume the logs are safely on disk. If
>> you can elaborate what you mean by "control is returned to dbms", maybe
>> someone can explain why in more detail.
>>
>
> I think he is refering to the plain old "the disk/os is lying about whether
> the data really made it to stable storage" issue(especially with the huge
> local caches on modern disks) - if you have such a disk and/or an OS with
> broken barrier support you are doomed.
>
>
> Stefan
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | flyusa2010 fly | 2010-12-05 06:33:32 | what are clog and xlog? |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-12-05 05:56:51 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |