| From: | Xu Yifeng <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Date: | 2001-03-16 08:53:12 |
| Message-ID: | 17229254645.20010316165312@telekbird.com.cn |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Alfred,
Friday, March 16, 2001, 3:21:09 PM, you wrote:
AP> * Xu Yifeng <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn> [010315 22:25] wrote:
>>
>> Could anyone consider fork a syncer process to sync data to disk ?
>> build a shared sync queue, when a daemon process want to do sync after
>> write() is called, just put a sync request to the queue. this can release
>> process from blocked on writing as soon as possible. multipile sync
>> request for one file can be merged when the request is been inserting to
>> the queue.
AP> I suggested this about a year ago. :)
AP> The problem is that you need that process to potentially open and close
AP> many files over and over.
AP> I still think it's somewhat of a good idea.
I am not a DBMS guru.
couldn't the syncer process cache opened files? is there any problem I
didn't consider ?
--
Best regards,
Xu Yifeng
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-03-16 12:45:35 | Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-03-16 07:21:09 | Re: Re[2]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |