From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |
Date: | 2000-02-07 16:47:45 |
Message-ID: | 20056.949942065@sss.pgh.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:
> Don't tell me we fsync on every buffer write, and not just at
> transaction commit? That is terrible.
If you don't have -F set, yup. Why did you think fsync mode was
so slow?
> What if we set a flag on the file descriptor stating we dirtied/wrote
> one of its buffers during the transaction, and cycle through the file
> descriptors on buffer commit and fsync all involved in the transaction.
That's exactly what Tatsuo was describing, I believe. I think Hiroshi
has pointed out a serious problem that would make it unreliable when
multiple backends are running: if some *other* backend fwrites the page
instead of your backend, and it doesn't fsync until *its* transaction is
done (possibly long after yours), then you lose the ordering guarantee
that is the point of the whole exercise...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-02-07 16:54:22 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-07 16:40:17 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |