On 12/22/16 12:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On December 22, 2016 6:44:22 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
wrote:
It makes more sense of you mentally separate between filename(s) and
file contents. Having to do filesystem metatata transactions for an
fsync intended to sync contents would be annoying...
I thought that's why there's fdatasync.
Not quite IIRC: that doesn't deal with file size increase. All this would be
easier if hardlinks wouldn't exist IIUC. It's basically a question whether
dentry, inode or contents need to be synced. Yes, it sucks.
IIRC this isn't the first time we've run into this problem... should
pg_fsync() automatically fsync the directory as well? I guess we'd need
a flag to disable that for performance critical areas where we know we
don't need it (presumably just certain WAL fsyncs).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
