On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-08-27 10:17:06 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: >> > I think a somewhat smarter version of the explicit flushes in the >> > hack^Wpatch I posted nearby is going to more likely to be successful. >> >> >> That path is "dangerous" (as in, may not work as intended) if the >> filesystem doesn't properly understand range flushes (ehem, like >> ext3). > > The sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) I used isn't a operation > guaranteeing durability. And - afaik - not implemented in a file system > specific manner. It just initiates writeback for individual pages. It > doesn't cause barrier, journal flushes or anything to be issued. That's > still done by the fsync() later. > > The big disadvantage is that it's a OS specific solution, but I don't > think we're going to find anything that isn't in this area.
I guess it should work then. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
