| From: | "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 22:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1028327051.1264.46.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Are you sure this is true for all ports? And if so, why would it be
cheaper for the kernel to do it in its buffer manager, compared to us
doing it in ours? This just seems bogus to rely on. Does anyone know
what POSIX has to say about this?
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 18:01, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > > How do you get atomic block copies otherwise?
> >
> > Eh? The kernel does that for you, as long as you're reading the
> > same-size blocks that the backends are writing, no?
>
> Good point.
>
> Vadim
>
--
J. R. Nield
jrnield(at)usol(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Tucker | 2002-08-02 22:40:27 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-08-02 22:15:32 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |