Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions
Date: 2016-02-06 17:41:46
Message-ID: 20160206174146.GB21037@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-02-06 17:43:48 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >Still the data is here... But well. I won't insist.
>
> Huh? This thread started by an example how to cause loss of committed
> transactions. That fits my definition of "data loss" quite well.

Agreed, that view doesn't seem to make much sense. This clearly is a
data loss issue.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-02-06 17:47:56 Re: Explanation for bug #13908: hash joins are badly broken
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-06 16:52:11 Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional