Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Wayne Piekarski <wayne(at)senet(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: hannu(at)trust(dot)ee (Hannu Krosing), pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress
Date: 1999-06-20 23:22:39
Message-ID: 13130.929920959@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Wayne Piekarski <wayne(at)senet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I already have the -o -F switch in the startup file (which I believe is
> working) but I'm under the impression from what I read that there are two
> fsync's - one you can switch off, and one which is fixed into the code
> and possibly can't be removed?

No. I've looked.

Actually there is an un-disablable fsync() on the error file in elog.c,
but it's not invoked under ordinary scenarios as far as I can tell,
and it shouldn't be a performance bottleneck anyway. *All* the ordinary
uses of fsync go through pg_fsync.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-06-21 01:37:39 Status report: subselect + grouping problems
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-06-20 15:00:44 Re: [HACKERS] /usr/local/include search