From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" |
Date: | 1999-06-25 01:18:59 |
Message-ID: | 3772D902.B048E6C1@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > > For instance, if there are assumptions that all data blocks are
> > > written before this fact is recorded in a log file, then
> > > "write data blocks" "fsynch" "write log" "fsynch" doesn't break
> > > that assumption,
> > >
> > Are we really doing a sync after the pg_log write ? While the sync
> > after datablock write seems necessary to guarantee consistency,
> > the sync after log write is actually not necessary to guarantee consistency.
> > Would it be a first step, to special case the writing to pg_log, as
> > to not sync (extra switch to backend) ? This would avoid the syncs
> > for read only transactions, since they don't cause data block writes.
>
> You are right. We don't need a sync after the pg_log write.
We need. I agreed with extra switch to backend.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-06-25 02:51:47 | Re: [HACKERS] fsynch of pg_log write.. |
Previous Message | sean dreilinger | 1999-06-25 00:51:14 | solution for psql segmentation fault ?? |