| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Date: | 2016-03-04 22:46:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqThA6YZ4tz+adPKhCw-hqdjLnO7A2BdvdD07LJt5XBiAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-03-05 07:29:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> OK. I could produce that by tonight my time, not before unfortunately.
>
> I'm switching to this patch, after pushing the pending logical decoding
> fixes. Probably not today, but tomorrow PST afternoon should work.
OK, so if that's the case there is not need to step on your toes seen from here.
>> And FWIW, per the comments of Andres, it is not clear to me what we
>> gain by having a common routine for link() and rename() knowing that
>> half the code paths performing a rename do not rely on link().
>
> I'm not talking about replacing all renames with this. Just the ones
> that currently use link(). There's not much point in introducing
> link_safe(), when all the callers have the same duplicated code, with a
> fallback to rename().
Indeed, that's the case. I don't have a better name than replace_safe
though. replace_paranoid is not a very appealing name either.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-04 22:47:46 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-04 22:43:00 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |