On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 19:15 -0700, andres@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2018-04-18 18:57:23 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:47:49AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > If the main use case is something like Postgresql, where you care > > > about > > > just one or two critical files, rather than monitoring the entire > > > filesystem could we perhaps use a dedicated mmap() mode? It > > > should be > > > possible to throw up a bitmap that displays the exact blocks or > > > pages > > > that are affected, once the file has been damaged. > > > > Perhaps we need to have a quick summary of the postgres problem ... > > they're not concerned with "one or two files", otherwise they could > > just keep those files open and the wb_err mechanism would work > > fine. > > The problem is that they have too many files to keep open in their > > checkpointer process, and when they come along and open the files, > > they don't see the error.. > > Correct. Do you want a summary here or at LSF/MM? Thanks to Jon > Corbet > I've got a last minute invitation. > I'm not attending LSF/MM this year. Cheers Trond