From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" |
Date: | 1999-06-24 15:42:36 |
Message-ID: | 199906241542.LAA17009@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > For instance, if there are assumptions that all data blocks are
> > written before this fact is recorded in a log file, then
> > "write data blocks" "fsynch" "write log" "fsynch" doesn't break
> > that assumption,
> >
> Are we really doing a sync after the pg_log write ? While the sync
> after datablock write seems necessary to guarantee consistency,
> the sync after log write is actually not necessary to guarantee consistency.
> Would it be a first step, to special case the writing to pg_log, as
> to not sync (extra switch to backend) ? This would avoid the syncs
> for read only transactions, since they don't cause data block writes.
You are right. We don't need a sync after the pg_log write.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-24 15:46:27 | Re: [PORTS] Postgres on NT freezing |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-24 15:34:53 | Re: [HACKERS] money data type and conversions] |