Re: Background writer process

From: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Background writer process
Date: 2003-11-13 22:00:43
Message-ID: 20031113220042.GA1218@ping.be
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not
> change the real checkpointing at all, and the general framework having a
> separate process is what we probably want.

Why is the sync() needed at all? My understanding was that it
was only needed in case of a checkpoint.

Kurt

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-13 22:10:49 Re: Background writer process
Previous Message Robert Treat 2003-11-13 21:54:32 Re: cvs head? initdb?