Re: Load distributed checkpoint

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >> What about the mmap/msync(?)/munmap idea someone mentioned?
>
> > I see that as similar to using O_DIRECT during checkpoint, which had
> > poor performance.
>
> That's a complete nonstarter on portability grounds, even if msync gave
> us the desired semantics, which it doesn't. It's no better than fsync
> for our purposes.
>
> To my mind the problem with fsync is not that it gives us too little
> control but that it gives too much: we have to specify a particular
> order of writing out files. What we'd really like is a version of
> sync(2) that tells us when it's done but doesn't constrain the I/O
> scheduler's choices at all. Unfortunately there's no such API ...

Yea, we used to use sync() but that did all files, not just the
PostgreSQL ones.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +