| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Arthur Zakirov <zaartur(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack |
| Date: | 2020-01-14 06:26:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_atTPgkes5fKxFvba5HmQKt3zuY58sDZCaGiOBPn3yx=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:18 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 03:39:32PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Actually, can't it create a security hazard, for instance if you call
> > pg_file_sync() on a heap file and the calls errors out, since it's
> > bypassing data_sync_retry?
>
> Are you mistaking security with durability here?
Yes, data durability sorry.
> By default, the
> function proposed is only executable by a superuser, so that's not
> really a security concern.. But I agree that failing to detect a
> PANIC on a fsync for a sensitive Postgres file could lead to
> corruptions. That's why we PANIC these days.
Exactly. My concern is that some superuser may not be aware that
pg_file_sync could actually corrupt data, so there should be a big red
warning explaining that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-01-14 06:32:39 | Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-14 06:17:56 | Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack |