Hi, On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 03:42:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 01:52:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 11:13:04PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> I think those are two independent issues - knowing that the snapshot is > >> from the last checkpoint, and knowing that it's correct (not corrupted). > >> And yeah, we should be careful about fsync/durable_rename. > > > > Yeah, that's bugging me as well. I don't really get why we would not > > want durability at shutdown for this data. So how about switching the > > end of pgstat_write_statsfile() to use durable_rename()? Sounds like > > an independent change, worth on its own. > > Please find attached a rebased patch set with the durability point > addressed in 0001. There were also some conflicts.
Thanks! Looking at 0001: + /* error logged already */ Maybe mention it's already logged by durable_rename() (like it's done in InstallXLogFileSegment(), BaseBackup() for example). Except this nit, 0001 LGTM. Need to spend more time and thoughts on 0002+. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
