Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vadim Mikheev
Subject Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F"
Date
Msg-id 3772D902.B048E6C1@krs.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F"  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F"
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >
> > > For instance, if there are assumptions that all data blocks are
> > > written before this fact is recorded in a log file, then
> > > "write data blocks" "fsynch" "write log" "fsynch" doesn't break
> > > that assumption,
> > >
> > Are we really doing a sync after the pg_log write ? While the sync
> > after datablock write seems necessary to guarantee consistency,
> > the sync after log write is actually not necessary to guarantee consistency.
> > Would it be a first step, to special case the writing to pg_log, as
> > to not sync (extra switch to backend) ? This would avoid the syncs
> > for read only transactions, since they don't cause data block writes.
> 
> You are right.  We don't need a sync after the pg_log write.

We need. I agreed with extra switch to backend.

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: sean dreilinger
Date:
Subject: solution for psql segmentation fault ??
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fsynch of pg_log write..