Re: WAL recycling, Linux 2.4.18

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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