Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F"

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F"
Date: 1999-06-24 15:42:36
Message-ID: 199906241542.LAA17009@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> > For instance, if there are assumptions that all data blocks are
> > written before this fact is recorded in a log file, then
> > "write data blocks" "fsynch" "write log" "fsynch" doesn't break
> > that assumption,
> >
> Are we really doing a sync after the pg_log write ? While the sync
> after datablock write seems necessary to guarantee consistency,
> the sync after log write is actually not necessary to guarantee consistency.
> Would it be a first step, to special case the writing to pg_log, as
> to not sync (extra switch to backend) ? This would avoid the syncs
> for read only transactions, since they don't cause data block writes.

You are right. We don't need a sync after the pg_log write.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-24 15:46:27 Re: [PORTS] Postgres on NT freezing
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-24 15:34:53 Re: [HACKERS] money data type and conversions]