| From: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint question |
| Date: | 2006-01-12 03:34:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0601112233270.6385@eon.cs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It'd be possible to do something like this: after establishing
> RedoRecPtr, make one quick pass through the buffers and make a list of
> what needs to be dumped at that instant. Then go back and do the actual
> I/O for only those buffers. I'm dubious that this will really improve
> matters though, as the net effect is just to postpone I/O that will
> happen anyway soon after the checkpoint (as soon as the bgwriter goes
> back to normal activity).
>
We could extend the grammar to CHECKPOINT [FULL/PARTIAL] to let the user
decide what to do. If PARTIAL, an important reason is for fast recovery.
Regards,
Qingqing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-01-12 08:58:48 | Re: Checkpoint question |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-01-12 03:33:07 | Re: Checkpoint question |