From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |
Date: | 2000-02-08 09:12:44 |
Message-ID: | 200002080912.EAA12806@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am suggesting opening and marking a file descriptor as needing fsync
> > even if I only dirty the buffer and not write it. I understand another
> > backend may write my buffer and remove it before I commit my
> > transaction. However, I will be the one to fsync it. I am also
> > suggesting that such file descriptors never get recycled until
> > transaction commit.
>
> > Is that wrong?
>
> I see where you're going, and you could possibly make it work, but
> there are a bunch of problems. One objection is that kernel FDs
> are a very finite resource on a lot of platforms --- you don't really
> want to tie up one FD for every dirty buffer, and you *certainly*
> don't want to get into a situation where you can't release kernel
> FDs until end of xact. You might be able to get around that by
> associating the fsync-needed bit with VFDs instead of FDs.
OK, at least I was thinking correctly. Yes, there are serious drawbacks
that make this pretty hard to implement. Unless Vadim revives this, we
can drop it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(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 | 2000-02-08 09:16:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in cursors?? |
Previous Message | Chris | 2000-02-08 09:10:55 | How to make a patch? |