On 2/13/19 1:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-13 12:59:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> On 2019-02-13 12:37:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Bleah. But in any case, the rename should not create a situation
>>>> in which we need to fsync the file data again.
>>> Well, it's not super well defined which of either you need to make the
>>> rename durable, and it appears to differ between OSs. Any argument
>>> against fixing it up like I suggested, by using an fd from before the
>>> rename?
>> I'm unimpressed. You're speculating about the filesystem having random
>> deviations from POSIX behavior, and using that weak argument to justify a
>> totally untested technique having its own obvious portability hazards.
> Uhm, we've reproduced failures due to the lack of such fsyncs at some
> point. And not some fringe OS, but ext4 (albeit with data=writeback).
>
> I don't think POSIX has yet figured out what they actually think is
> required:
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=672
>
> I guess we could just ignore ENOENT in this case, that ought to be just
> as safe as using the old fd.
>
>
>> Also, I wondered why this is coming out as a PANIC. I thought originally
>> that somebody must be causing this code to run in a critical section,
>> but it looks like the real issue is just that fsync_fname() uses
>> data_sync_elevel, which is
>>
>> int
>> data_sync_elevel(int elevel)
>> {
>> return data_sync_retry ? elevel : PANIC;
>> }
>>
>> I really really don't want us doing questionably-necessary fsyncs with a
>> PANIC as the result.
> Well, given the 'failed fsync throws dirty data away' issue, I don't
> quite see what we can do otherwise. But:
>
>
>> Perhaps more to the point, the way this was coded, the PANIC applies
>> to open() failures in fsync_fname_ext() not just fsync() failures;
>> that's painting with too broad a brush isn't it?
> That indeed seems wrong. Thomas? I'm not quite sure how to best fix
> this though - I guess we could rename fsync_fname_ext's eleval parameter
> to fsync_failure_elevel? It's not visible outside fd.c, so that'd not be
> to bad?
>
Thread seems to have gone quiet ...
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
