RE: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
Cc: Xu Yifeng <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-16 17:10:43
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3324@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> We've speculated about using Posix semaphores instead, on platforms

For spinlocks we should use pthread mutex-es.

> where those are available. I think Bruce was concerned about the

And nutex-es are more portable than semaphores.

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2001-03-16 17:14:06 AW: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2001-03-16 17:10:34 Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC