On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> At 2015-05-01 08:10:16 -0400, robertmhaas@gmail.com wrote:
>> It seems to me that, at a minimum, it would be good to split those
>> controversial and definitely not-back-patchable changes into their
>> own patch.
>
> OK, split here (0002*).
>
>> I do mind putting it into xlog.c instead of some place that's actually
>> appropriate.
>
> OK, moved to storage/file/fd.c (0001*).
Here's a revised version of your 0001 patch which I am comfortable
with. I changed some of the comments, and I moved the fsync_pgdata()
call slightly later, so that we don't do a (possibly long) set of
fsyncs before printing out the first log message that tells the user
what is going on.
If you don't object to this version, I'll commit it. I believe this
part *should* be back-patched, but Tom seemed to disagree, for reasons
I'm not really clear on. This is a potential data corrupting bug as
legitimate as any other, so a back-patch seems right to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
