On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Gierth
<and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
> Furthermore, checking the trace output from the checkpointer process, it
> is not even attempting an fsync of the failing file; this isn't like the
> Linux fsync issue, I've confirmed that fsync will repeatedly fail on the
> file until the underlying errors stop.
Thank you for confirming that! Now, how does one go about buying
shares in FreeBSD?
> As far as I can tell from reading the code, if a checkpoint fails the
> checkpointer is supposed to keep all the outstanding fsync requests for
> next time. Am I wrong, or is there some failure in the logic to do this?
Yikes. I think this is suspicious:
* The bitmap manipulations are slightly tricky,
because we can call
* AbsorbFsyncRequests() inside the loop and that
could result in
* bms_add_member() modifying and even re-palloc'ing
the bitmapsets.
* This is okay because we unlink each bitmapset from
the hashtable
* entry before scanning it. That means that any incoming fsync
* requests will be processed now if they reach the
table before we
* begin to scan their fork.
Why is it OK to unlink the bitmapset? We still need its contents, in
the case that the fsync fails!
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
