Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Don Baccus |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3.0.1.32.19990622224345.00deb3cc@mail.pacifier.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
At 08:36 PM 6/22/99 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> At 06:38 PM 6/22/99 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> >No Fsync is only dangerous if your OS or hardware crashes without >> >flushing the disk. Anything else is unaffected, and is just as reliable. >> >> Yes, this much I realize... >> >> >The database could be inconsistent, in the sense that partial >> >transactions are recorded as completed. >> >> With recovery possible without a rebuild? Or is rebuilding >> from dumps required? (I dump nightly and copy the results >> to a second machine for additional safety, and soon will >> be ftp'ing dump files to the east coast for even more >> safety). > > >> >> Perhaps fsync'ing then is only LESS dangerous, since >> a system can crash while blocks are being written even >> when fsync is enabled. The window of evil opportunity >> for a system crash is much smaller than if the data's sitting >> around for a lengthy time in the Linux FS cache, of course, >> but not absent. > >Yes, this is true, but much less likely because the ordering of the >flushing is done before the transaction is marked as completed. > >> >> Or does the fact that the backend loses control over the >> order in which stuff is written (in other words, blocks >> are written whenever and in what order Linux choses rather >> than fsync'd a file at a time) mean that the kind of >> inconsistency that might result is different? I.E. >> log file written before datablocks are, that kind of >> thing. > >Yes. It is not a problem that a give transaction aborts while it is >being done because it couldn't have been marked as completed, but the >previous transaction was marked as completed, and only some blocks could >be on the disk. > > >> >> >I think it is a major issue too. >> >> Is there any estimate of the difficulty of fixing it? >> >From previous discussions, it sounded as though new >> bookkeeping would be needed to determine which queries >> actually result in a change in data. > >I hope for every release. I tried to propose some solutions, but >couldn't code it. > >-- > Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle > maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > > - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net
pgsql-hackers by date: