Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability
Date
Msg-id A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B53979438@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier wrote:
>> In my quest of making the backup tools more compliant to data
>> durability, here is a thread for pg_dump and pg_dumpall.
> 
> Okay, here is a patch doing the above. I have added a new --nosync
> option to pg_dump and pg_dumpall to switch to the pre-10 behavior. I
> have arrived at the conclusion that it is better not to touch at
> _EndData and _EndBlob, and just issue the fsync in CloseArchive when
> all the write operations are done. In the case of the directory
> format, the fsync is done on all the entries recursively. This makes
> as well the patch more simple. The regression tests calling pg_dump
> don't use --nosync yet in this patch, that's a move that could be done
> afterwards.

The patch does not apply, I had to change the hunk for
src/include/common/file_utils.h.

Also, compilation fails because function "pre_fsync_fname" cannot be
resolved during linking. Is that a typo for "pre_fsync_fname" or is
the patch incomplete?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Radix tree for character conversion
Next
From: Jaime Casanova
Date:
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take