| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Dominic J(dot) Eidson'" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe |
| Date: | 2001-03-13 05:22:27 |
| Message-ID: | 18220.984460947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> The idea is, that by the time the last sync has run, the
>> first sync will be done flushing the buffers to disk. - this is what
>> we were told by the IBM engineers when I worked tier-2/3 AIX support
>> at IBM.
> I was told the same a long ago about FreeBSD. How much can we count on
> this undocumented sync() feature?
Sounds quite unreliable to me. Unless there's some interlock ... like,
say, the second sync not being able to advance past a buffer page that's
as yet unwritten by the first sync. But would all Unixen share such a
strange detail of implementation?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-03-13 05:38:07 | RE: xlog loose ends, continued |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-03-13 05:13:44 | RE: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe |