| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Background writer process |
| Date: | 2003-11-13 22:10:49 |
| Message-ID: | 200311132210.hADMAnK26464@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> > recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> > to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not
> > change the real checkpointing at all, and the general framework having a
> > separate process is what we probably want.
>
> Why is the sync() needed at all? My understanding was that it
> was only needed in case of a checkpoint.
He found that write() itself didn't encourage the kernel to write the
buffers to disk fast enough. I think the final solution will be to use
fsync or O_SYNC.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-13 22:23:08 | Re: cvs head? initdb? |
| Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-11-13 22:00:43 | Re: Background writer process |