Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group