RE: [HACKERS] TODO item

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] TODO item
Date: 2000-02-06 08:36:55
Message-ID: NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFMEKPCCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
>
> > > In the TODO file:
> > >
> > > * -Allow transaction commits with rollback with no-fsync
> performance [fsync](Vadim)
> > >
> > > Has this been done in current? I see almost no performance
> > > improvement on copying data into a table.
> >
> > TODO updated. That was part of MVCC which originally was supposed to be
> > in 7.0.
>
> Thanks.
>
> BTW, I have worked a little bit on this item. The idea is pretty
> simple. Instead of doing a real fsync() in pg_fsync(), just marking it
> so that we remember to do fsync() at the commit time. Following

This seems not good,unfortunately.
Note that the backend which calls pg_fsync() for a relation file may
be different from the backend which updated shared buffers of the file.
The former backend wouldn't necessarily be committed when the
latter backend is committed.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Meskes 2000-02-06 10:23:26 Re: [HACKERS] Two backends at the same time
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-02-06 06:55:26 Re: [HACKERS] TODO item