Re: improving concurrent transactin commit rate

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk (Sam Mason), pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: improving concurrent transactin commit rate
Date: 2009-03-25 01:17:44
Message-ID: 87zlfapfif.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:

Sam> Hi,
Sam> I had an idea while going home last night and still can't think
Sam> why it's not implemented already as it seems obvious.
[snip idea about WAL fsyncs]

Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, I think it already has (long
ago).

Only the holder of the WALWriteLock can write and fsync the WAL, and
XLogFlush implements pretty much exactly the logic you described.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-25 01:18:44 Re: Function C and INOUT parameters
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2009-03-25 01:11:23 Re: hstore patch, part 2