couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: Release 1.0.2
Date Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:58:13 GMT
If you're referring to the COUCHDB-767 discussion, I don't think it was ever resolved.  I don't
want to revert the patch unless there is an operating system somewhere on which it actually
results in reduced durability.  I agree that it's icky to be relying on a property of fsync()
that is apparently not guaranteed by any specification, but it sucks to block readers just
to flush disk buffers.

As an aside, I'm having trouble reconciling Tso's statement in
with the following from SUS v2:

> The fsync() function forces all currently queued I/O operations associated with the file
indicated by file descriptor fildes to the synchronised I/O completion state.

It doesn't say I/O operations associated with the file descriptor, it says I/O operations
associated with the file.  But far be it from me to question his interpretation of the spec;
he's written more filesystems than I've used in production.  Best,


On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:

> I'm a little late to this party.
> The discussion about reverting a commit that may have interfered without
> fsync guarantees, did that go in for 1.0.2?
> That's an important bug that I would like to see in 1.0.2.
> -Mikeal
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Filipe David Manana
> <>wrote:
>> I'm totally +1 on 1.0.2 asap.
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 18:06, Filipe David Manana <>
>> wrote:
>>>> and done
>>> Oh, look, I'm back for more nagging! How are we doing on 1.0.2? Or
>>> 1.1, for that matter, just any release that gets me the good stuff
>>> you've all been working on.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dirkjan
>> --
>> Filipe David Manana,
>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
>> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
>> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

View raw message