Subject: Re: client-side fsync() error handling
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
References: <d239d1bd-aef0-ca7c-dc0a-da14bdcf0392@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200212052819.GD1464@paquier.xyz>
 <0412a2fb-cbde-08c6-9ff2-cfab5c27a3b8@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200213115245.GM1520@paquier.xyz>
 <4c1fb761-936c-056d-a542-fa37678465a9@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200221041800.GC3260@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <da539e2f-3d0f-65ec-44d8-8e37c3b0a4f7@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:03:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200221041800.GC3260@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-02-21 05:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:10:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> OK, added in new patch.
> 
> Thanks, that looks good.

committed

>> The frontends do neither right now, or at least the error handling is very
>> inconsistent and inscrutable.  It would be possible in theory to add a retry
>> option, but that would be a very different patch, and given what we have
>> learned about fsync(), it probably wouldn't be widely useful.
> 
> Perhaps.  Let's have this discussion later if there are drawbacks
> about changing things the way your patch does.  If we don't do that,
> we'll never know about it either and this patch makes things safer.

yup

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services