On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/16 2:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> So, attached are two patches that apply on HEAD to address the problem
> >> of pg_basebackup that does not sync the data it writes. As
> >> pg_basebackup cannot use directly initdb -S because, as a client-side
> >> utility, it may be installed while initdb is not (see Fedora and
> >> RHEL), I have refactored the code so as the routines in initdb.c doing
> >> the fsync of PGDATA and other fsync stuff are in src/fe_utils/, and
> >> this is 0001.
> > Why fe_utils? initdb is not a front-end program.
> Thinking about that, you are right. Let's move it to src/common,
> frontend-only though.
> >> Patch 0002 is a set of fixes for pg_basebackup:
> >> - In plain mode, fsync_pgdata is used so as all the tablespaces are
> >> fsync'd at once. This takes care as well of the case where pg_xlog is
> >> a symlink.
> >> - In tar mode (no stdout), each tar file is synced individually, and
> >> the base directory is synced once at the end.
> >> In both cases, failures are not considered fatal.
> > Maybe there should be --nosync options like initdb has?
> What do others think about that? I could implement that on top of 0002
> with some extra options. But to be honest that looks to be just some
> extra sugar for what is basically a bug fix... And I am feeling that
> providing such a switch to users would be a way for one to shoot
> himself badly, particularly for pg_receivexlog where a crash can cause
> segments to go missing.
Well, why do we provide a --nosync option for initdb? Wouldn't the argument
basically be the same?
I agree it kind of feels like overkill, but it would be consistent