Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I've pushed a modified version of the fix that Michael posted in > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRmM%2BCX6bVxw0Y7mMVGMFj1S8kwhevt8TaP83yeFRfbXA%40mail.gmail.com Thanks. -- Michael -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-03-09 19:43:52 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > how come that the only comment in pg_rewind about fsyncing is ' > void > close_target_file(void) > { > ... > /* fsync? */ > } > > Isn't that a bit, uh, minimal for a utility that's likely to be used in > failover scenarios? > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-03-10 20:31:55 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Having to backpatch a single system() invocation + find_other_exec() > > call, and backporting a more general FRONTEND version of initdb's > > fsync_pgdata() are

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> a target data folder should be stopped properly to be able to rewind, >> and it is better to avoid dependencies between utilities if that's not >> strictly necessary. initdb is likely to be installed side-by-side >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-10 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2016-03-10 08:47:16 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote: > Still, I think that we had better fsync only entries that are modified > by pg_rewind, and files that got updated, and not the whole directory Why? If any files in there are dirty, they need to be fsynced. If they're not dirty, fsync's

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2016-03-10 08:35:43 +0100, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > I guess the easiest fix would be to shell out to initdb -s? >> >> What do you mean? I am not sure what initdb has to do with that as we >> have

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-09 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2016-03-10 08:35:43 +0100, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I guess the easiest fix would be to shell out to initdb -s? > > What do you mean? I am not sure what initdb has to do with that as we > have no need for it in pg_rewind. initdb -S/--sync-only fsyncs everything in the data

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > how come that the only comment in pg_rewind about fsyncing is ' > void > close_target_file(void) > { > ... > /* fsync? */ > } > > Isn't that a bit, uh, minimal for a utility that's likely to be used in > failover

[HACKERS] pg_rewind just doesn't fsync *anything*?

2016-03-09 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, how come that the only comment in pg_rewind about fsyncing is ' void close_target_file(void) { ... /* fsync? */ } Isn't that a bit, uh, minimal for a utility that's likely to be used in failover scenarios? I think we might actually be "saved" due to