Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync?
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=23GCvc+sY_Y-HH=d06iyYiKFG_W7KXn76aRpuFiAP2aQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync?  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync?
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Won't in the success case, you need to delete each member (by
> something like bms_del_member) rather than just using bms_free?

Thanks for looking at this.  Yeah, if requests for segment numbers 0
and 1 were in "requests", and 0 succeeded but then 1 fails, my
previous patch would leave both in there to be retried next time
around.  I thought that was pretty harmless so I didn't worry about it
before, but of course you're right that it's not necessary to retry
the ones that succeeded, so we could remove them as we go.  New patch
attached.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: csv format for psql
Next
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS