On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > At 2015-05-01 08:10:16 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: >> It seems to me that, at a minimum, it would be good to split those >> controversial and definitely not-back-patchable changes into their >> own patch. > > OK, split here (0002*). > >> I do mind putting it into xlog.c instead of some place that's actually >> appropriate. > > OK, moved to storage/file/fd.c (0001*).
Here's a revised version of your 0001 patch which I am comfortable with. I changed some of the comments, and I moved the fsync_pgdata() call slightly later, so that we don't do a (possibly long) set of fsyncs before printing out the first log message that tells the user what is going on. If you don't object to this version, I'll commit it. I believe this part *should* be back-patched, but Tom seemed to disagree, for reasons I'm not really clear on. This is a potential data corrupting bug as legitimate as any other, so a back-patch seems right to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
fsync-pgdata-rmh.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
