RE: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Dominic J(dot) Eidson'" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>
Cc: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe
Date: 2001-03-13 05:13:44
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3317@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > to re-write smgr. I don't know how useful is second sync() call, but
> > on Solaris (and I believe on many other *NIXes) rc0 calls it
> > three times, -:) Why?
>
> The idea is, that by the time the last sync has run, the
> first sync will be done flushing the buffers to disk. - this is what
> we were told by the IBM engineers when I worked tier-2/3 AIX support
> at IBM.

I was told the same a long ago about FreeBSD. How much can we count on
this undocumented sync() feature?

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-13 05:22:27 Re: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe
Previous Message Dominic J. Eidson 2001-03-13 04:57:21 Re: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems unsafe