On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 12:29:16PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-09 21:26:21 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> > What about having buffered IO with implied fsync() atomicity via
> > O_SYNC?
> You're kidding, right? We could also just add sleep(30)'s all over the
> tree, and hope that that'll solve the problem. There's a reason we
> don't permanently fsync everything. Namely that it'll be way too slow.
I am assuming you can apply the same principle of selectively using O_SYNC
at times and places that you'd currently actually call fsync().
Also assuming that you'd want to have a backwards-compatible solution for
all those kernels that don't keep the pages around, irrespective of future
fixes. Short of loading a kernel module and dealing with the problem directly,
the only other available options seem to be either O_SYNC, O_DIRECT or ignoring