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
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?
>
>
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
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
>>
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
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
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
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
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