Re: Background writer process

Jan Wieck wrote:
> That is all right and as said, how often, how much and how forced we do
> the IO can all be configurable and as flexible as people see fit. But
> whether you use sync(), fsync(), fdatasync(), O_SYNC, O_DSYNC or
> posix_fadvise(), somewhere you have to do the write(). And that write
> has to be coordinated with the buffer cache replacement strategy so that
> you write those buffers that are likely to be replaced soon, and don't
> write those that the strategy thinks keeping for longer anyway. Except
> at a checkpoint, then you have to write whatever is dirty.
>
> The patch I posted does this write() in coordination with the strategy
> in a separate background process, so that the regular backends don't
> have to write under normal circumstances (there are some places in DDL
> statements that call BufferSync(), that's exceptions IMHO). Can we agree
> on this general outline? Or do we have any better proposals?

Agreed. Background write() is a win on all all OS's. It is just the
kernel to disk part we will have to have configurable, I think.

--
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