On 05.05.2016 7:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com>> writes:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Ignatov
mailto:a.igna...@postgrespro.ru>>
> > wrote:
> >> On 03.05.2016 2:17,
On 06.05.2016 0:42, Greg Stark wrote:
On 5 May 2016 12:32 am, "Tom Lane" mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> To repeat, I'm pretty hesitant to change this logic. While this is not
> the first report we've ever heard of loss of pg_control, I believe I
could
> count those reports without r
Greg Stark writes:
> One thing we could do without much worry of being less reliable would be to
> keep two copies of pg_control. Write one, fsync, then write to the other
> and fsync that one.
Hmm, interesting thought. Without knowing more about the filesystem
problem that the OP had, it's hard
On 5 May 2016 12:32 am, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>
> To repeat, I'm pretty hesitant to change this logic. While this is not
> the first report we've ever heard of loss of pg_control, I believe I could
> count those reports without running out of fingers on one hand --- and
> that's counting since the la
On 2016-05-05 00:32:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> To repeat, I'm pretty hesitant to change this logic. While this is not
> the first report we've ever heard of loss of pg_control, I believe I could
> count those reports without running out of fingers on one hand --- and
> that's counting since the l
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> >> How about using 512 bytes as a write size and perform direct writes
rather
> >> than going via OS buffer cache for control file?
> >
> > Wouldn't that fail outrig
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> How about using 512 bytes as a write size and perform direct writes rather
>> than going via OS buffer cache for control file?
>
> Wouldn't that fail outright under a lot of implementations of direct write;
> ie the request
Amit Kapila writes:
> How about using 512 bytes as a write size and perform direct writes rather
> than going via OS buffer cache for control file?
Wouldn't that fail outright under a lot of implementations of direct write;
ie the request needs to be page-aligned, for some not-very-determinate
va
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Ignatov
> > wrote:
> >> On 03.05.2016 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too.
>
> >> pg_control is 8k long(i think it is legth of one page in defau
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Ignatov
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2016 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too.
>> pg_control is 8k long(i think it is legth of one page in default PG
>> compile settings).
> The actual data written is always
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Ignatov
wrote:
>
>
> On 03.05.2016 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Alex Ignatov writes:
>>
>>> I think that rename can help a little bit. At least on some FS it is
>>> atomic operation.
>>>
>>
>> Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too. I'm very skeptical
On 03.05.2016 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
Alex Ignatov writes:
I think that rename can help a little bit. At least on some FS it is
atomic operation.
Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too. I'm very skeptical that
it'll be an improvement to just move the risk from one filesystem
operatio
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 03.05.2016 2:21, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2016-04-28 21:58:00 +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after
power failure.My questions is : 1) Is
Hi,
On 2016-04-28 21:58:00 +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
> We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after
> power failure.My questions is : 1) Is pg_control protected from say ,
> power crash or partial write?
It should be. I think to make progress on this thread we're going to
n
Alex Ignatov writes:
> I think that rename can help a little bit. At least on some FS it is
> atomic operation.
Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too. I'm very skeptical that
it'll be an improvement to just move the risk from one filesystem
operation to another; especially not to one w
On 01.05.2016 0:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:58:00PM +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
Hello everyone!
We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after power
failure.
My questions is :
1) Is pg_control protected from say , power crash or partial write?
2) How
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:58:00PM +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after power
> failure.
> My questions is :
> 1) Is pg_control protected from say , power crash or partial write?
> 2) How PG update pg_control? By writing
17 matches
Mail list logo
