Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Date: 2007-07-24 01:11:12
Message-ID: 20469.1185239472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> What's the thing about doing the flush twice in a couple of comments in
> calls to XLogBackgroundFlush? Are they just leftover comments from
> older code?

I was wondering that too --- they looked like obsolete comments to me.

My current thinking BTW is that trying to make XLogBackgroundFlush serve
two purposes is counterproductive. It should be dedicated to use by the
walwriter only, and the checkpoint case should simply read the async
commit pointer and call regular XLogFlush with it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-07-24 04:58:30 Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-07-24 01:06:36 Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)