On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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.
I did more monitoring of the code... Looking at unlogged tables and empty() routines of access methods, isn't there a risk as well for unlogged tables? mdimmedsync() does not fsync() the parent directory either! It seems to me that we want to fsync() the parent folder in this code path especially and not just at checkpoint as this assumes that it does not care about shared buffers. We could do that at checkpoint as well, actually, by looping through all the tablespaces and fsync the database directories. Robert, as the former author of unlogged tables and Andres, as you have done a lot of work on durability, could you share your opinion on the matter? Of course opinions of others are welcome! -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
