| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jakub Wartak <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer |
| Date: | 2020-09-25 07:09:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLW3Y6=EsPSR5T0iDQaatP6GmXe3n6DFktAU-UF6FVX8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:53 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here's a new version. The final thing I'm contemplating before
> pushing this is whether there may be hidden magical dependencies in
> the order of operations in CheckPointGuts(), which I've changed
> around. Andres, any comments?
I nagged Andres off-list and he opined that it might be better to
reorder it a bit so that ProcessSyncRequests() comes after almost
everything else, so that if we ever teach more things to offload their
fsync work it'll be in the right order. I reordered it like that; now
only CheckPointTwoPhase() comes later, based on the comment that
accompanies it. In any case, we can always reconsider the ordering of
this function in later commits as required. Pushed like that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | torikoshia | 2020-09-25 07:28:02 | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-09-25 07:07:17 | Re: history file on replica and double switchover |