From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:10:46 +0100
Message-ID: <5d51a9cf-8f2e-a854-424f-001f0a260a8b@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1343113.1636489231@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1343113.1636489231@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 09.11.21 21:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why is this different from the half-dozen
> other fsync-error cases in the same file? Why, if fsync failure
> here is so catastrophic, is it okay to just return a normal failure
> code when tar_close doesn't even get to this point because of some
> earlier error? At the very least it seems like it'd be preferable
> to do the exit(1) at the caller level.
>
> The addition of the exit(1) seems to have been intentional in
> 1e2fddfa3, so cc'ing Peter for comment.
That commit addressed the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_receivewal
and pg_recvlogical, which are long-running daemon processes, so this
change was analogous to the server-side changes at the time. I don't
know what the behavior of fsync() failure in pg_basebackup should be, so
calls that are only reachable from pg_basebackup are currently being
handled differently.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup
In-Reply-To: <5d51a9cf-8f2e-a854-424f-001f0a260a8b@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox