From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inconsistent state after crash recovery |
Date: | 2013-08-02 12:08:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYapNH2nDE15yMkRt61X4by+5bfGRgetyt-gDbQW-uXmQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2013-07-26 13:33:13 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>>> Is this expected or acceptable?
>
>> I'd say it's both.
>
> Postgres is built on the assumption that the underlying filesystem is
> reliable, ie, once you've successfully fsync'd some data that data won't
> disappear. If the filesystem fails to honor that contract, it's a
> filesystem bug not a Postgres bug. Nor is it reasonable to expect
> Postgres to be able to detect every such violation. As an example,
> would you expect crash recovery to notice the disappearance of a file
> that was touched nowhere in the replayed actions?
Eh, maybe not. But should we try harder to detect the unexpected
disappearance of one that is?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-08-02 12:12:26 | Re: Add json_typeof() and json_is_*() functions. |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-08-02 11:52:52 | Re: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |