On 11/27/15 8:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > So, what's going on? The problem is that while the rename() is atomic, it's
>> > not guaranteed to be durable without an explicit fsync on the parent
>> > directory. And by default we only do fdatasync on the recycled segments,
>> > which may not force fsync on the directory (and ext4 does not do that,
>> > apparently).
> Yeah, that seems to be the way the POSIX spec clears things.
> "If _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO is defined, the fsync() function shall
> force all currently queued I/O operations associated with the file
> indicated by file descriptor fildes to the synchronized I/O completion
> state. All I/O operations shall be completed as defined for
> synchronized I/O file integrity completion."
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fsync.html
> If I understand that right, it is guaranteed that the rename() will be
> atomic, meaning that there will be only one file even if there is a
> crash, but that we need to fsync() the parent directory as mentioned.

I don't see anywhere in the spec that a rename needs an fsync of the
directory to be durable.  I can see why that would be needed in
practice, though.  File system developers would probably be able to give
a more definite answer.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to