| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2016-01-09 12:56:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20160109125621.2rfa2g4pgfgv4fcg@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-09 18:24:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, but I think that is the reason why you are worried that it is possible
> to issue sync_file_range() on a closed file, is that right or am I missing
> something?
That's one potential issue. You can also fsync a different file, try to
print an error message containing an unallocated filename (that's how I
noticed the issue in the first place)...
I don't think it's going to be acceptable to issue operations on more or
less random fds, even if that operation is hopefully harmless.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-09 13:35:54 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-09 12:54:01 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |