Re: fsync reliability

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> The traditional standard is that the filesystem is supposed to take
> care of its own metadata, and even Linux filesystems have pretty much
> figured that out.  I don't really see a need for us to be nursemaiding
> the filesystem.  At most there's a documentation issue here, ie,

I'm surprised by your response. If we've not documented something that
turns out to be essential to reliability of production databases, then
our users have a problem.

If our users have a data loss problem, my understanding was that we fixed it.

As it turns out, I've never personally advised anyone to use a
non-journalled filesystem, so my hands are clean in this. But it is
something we can fix, if we chose.

> we
> ought to be more explicit about which filesystems and which mount
> options we recommend.

Please be explicit then. What should the docs have said? I will update them.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services