Hi, On 2019-02-17 23:29:09 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hmm. Well, at least ENOSPC should be treated the same way as EIO. > Here's an experiment that seems to confirm some speculations about NFS > on Linux from the earlier threads: I wish we'd' a good way to have test scripts in the tree for something like that, but using postgres. Unfortunately it's not easy to write portable setup scripts for it. > So far I still think that we should panic if fsync() returns any error > number at all. For sync_file_range(), it sounds like maybe you think > we should leave the warning-spewing in there for ENOSYS, to do exactly > what we did before on principle since that's what back-branches are > all about? Something like: > > ereport(errno == ENOSYS ? WARNING : data_sync_elevel(WARNING), > > Perhaps for master we could skip it completely, or somehow warn just > once, and/or switch to one of our other implementations at runtime? I > don't really have a strong view on that, not being a user of that > system. Will they ever implement it? Are there other systems we care > about that don't implement it? (Android?) I'm not sure I see much need for leaving the warning in out of principle. Feels like we ought to sync_file_range once at postmaster startup and then just force-disable the flush GUCs if not available? Greetings, Andres Freund
