On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-29 10:06:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jim Nasby
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> That should work yeah. And given that we already use tha
On 2016-03-29 10:06:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> > On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That should work yeah. And given that we already use that check in other
> >> places, it seems it should be perfectly safe. And
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>>
>> That should work yeah. And given that we already use that check in other
>> places, it seems it should be perfectly safe. And as long as we only do
>> a WARNING and not abort if the fsync fails
On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That should work yeah. And given that we already use that check in other
places, it seems it should be perfectly safe. And as long as we only do
a WARNING and not abort if the fsync fails, we should be OK if people
intentionally store their backups on
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-28 11:35:57 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > > As pointed out in
On 2016-03-28 11:35:57 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > As pointed out in
> > >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskuse...@awork2.anarazel.de
>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > As pointed out in
> >
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskuse...@awork2.anarazel.de
> > our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently d
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> As pointed out in
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskuse...@awork2.anarazel.de
> our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently don't
> make any efforts to ensure their output is durable.
>
> I thi
Hi,
As pointed out in
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskuse...@awork2.anarazel.de
our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently don't
make any efforts to ensure their output is durable.
I think for backup tools of possibly critical data, that's pretty
