News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years. Parent comment

Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by jbverschoor on Sunday February 10, 2019 @06:30AM (#19127385)
They were not ewview comments. They were arguments about where it ends. He's totalyl unwilling, and says you shouldn't run of of NFS. But then other people are, and are talking about mount options, when the problem clearly lies in the code not following the specs.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by anarazel on Sunday February 10, 2019 @10:37AM (#19128154)
Why are:

> 1. If writes need to be retried, why not reads? (No, that's not an invitation to expand the scope of the patch; it's a question about NFS implementation.)

and

> 4. As coded, the patch behaves incorrectly if you get a zero return on a retry. If we were going to do this, I think we'd need to absorb the errno-munging currently done by callers into the writeAll function.

not review comments?

> when the problem clearly lies in the code not following the specs.

There were plenty of questions about how exactly the fix should look like below

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AD4A13A5-8778-4D94-BBB...

How's that not review?

[ Parent | on HN ]