From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL recycling, Linux 2.4.18 |
Date: | 2002-07-09 08:14:30 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0207091711110.21914-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, that's not unexpected; checkpoint is going to issue a deal of I/O
> and then sync() it. But that should *not* cause blockage of other
> backends; at worst they should slow down a bit due to I/O contention.
Well, depending on how the OS schedules writes, one process doing
a huge amount of writing might well slow down everything else a
lot, unless you've got a really good disk system.
But is it possible for a process to commit a transaction while a
checkpoint is in progress? That would mean that it's ok for the
checkpoint record to be after a bunch of transactions that are not
part of the checkpoint, right?
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Iavor Raytchev | 2002-07-09 08:22:58 | Re: [INTERFACES] pgaccess problems |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-07-09 05:18:30 | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |