On 12/22/16 12:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:

On December 22, 2016 6:44:22 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
It makes more sense of you mentally separate between filename(s) and
file contents.  Having to do filesystem metatata transactions for an
fsync intended to sync contents would be annoying...

I thought that's why there's fdatasync.
Not quite IIRC: that doesn't deal with file size increase.  All this would be 
easier if hardlinks wouldn't exist IIUC. It's basically a question whether 
dentry, inode or contents need to be synced.   Yes, it sucks.

IIRC this isn't the first time we've run into this problem... should pg_fsync() automatically fsync the directory as well? I guess we'd need a flag to disable that for performance critical areas where we know we don't need it (presumably just certain WAL fsyncs).
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

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

Reply via email to