On 2015-05-04 14:23:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > As for the non-backpatchable 0002, I agree with Andres that it should be > > included in 9.5; but I take it you're still not convinced? > > No, I'm not convinced. That patch will protect you in one extremely > specific scenario: you turn off fsync, do some stuff, shut down, turn > fsync back on again, and start up.
Hm. ISTM it'd not be hard to actually make it safe in nearly all situations. What about tracking the last checkpoint's fsync setting and do a fsync_pgdata() in the checkpointer at the end of a checkpointer if the previous setting was off and the current one is on? Combined with doing so at startup if the settings changed between runs, that should give pretty decent protection. And seems fairly simple to implement. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
