On 09.11.21 21:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why is this different from the half-dozen
> other fsync-error cases in the same file? Why, if fsync failure
> here is so catastrophic, is it okay to just return a normal failure
> code when tar_close doesn't even get to this point because of some
> earlier error? At the very least it seems like it'd be preferable
> to do the exit(1) at the caller level.
>
> The addition of the exit(1) seems to have been intentional in
> 1e2fddfa3, so cc'ing Peter for comment.
That commit addressed the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_receivewal
and pg_recvlogical, which are long-running daemon processes, so this
change was analogous to the server-side changes at the time. I don't
know what the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_basebackup should be, so
calls that are only reachable from pg_basebackup are currently being
handled differently.
