Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Date
Msg-id 20180404135301.GE25202@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr  4, 2018 at 10:40:16AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> The trouble with direct I/O is that it pushes a _lot_ of work back on
> PostgreSQL regarding knowledge of the storage subsystem, I/O scheduling, etc.
> It's absurd to have the kernel do this, unless you want it reliable, in which
> case you bypass it and drive the hardware directly.
> 
> We'd need pools of writer threads to deal with all the blocking I/O. It'd be
> such a nightmare. Hey, why bother having a kernel at all, except for drivers?

I believe this is how Oracle views the kernel, so there is precedent for
this approach, though I am not advocating it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS