Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> The whole sync() vs. fsync() discussion is in my opinion nonsense at
> this point.
The sync vs fsync discussion is not about performance, it is about
correctness. You can't simply dismiss the fact that we don't know
whether a checkpoint is really complete when we write the checkpoint
I liked the idea put forward by (I think) Kevin Brown, that we issue
sync to start the I/O and then a bunch of fsyncs to wait for it to
finish. If sync behaves per spec ("all the I/O is scheduled upon
return") then the fsyncs will not affect I/O ordering in the least.
But they will ensure that we don't proceed until the I/O is all done.
Also there is the Windows-port problem of not having sync available.
Doing the fsyncs only will provide an adequate, if possibly
lower-performing, solution there.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: PG||Date: 2004-02-09 16:36:03|
|Subject: postmaster wedged|
|Previous:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2004-02-09 15:53:34|
|Subject: Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support|
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-02-09 16:51:01|
|Subject: Re: Updated win32 readdir patch|
|Previous:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2004-02-09 14:33:09|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint|