| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] The dangers of "-F" |
| Date: | 1999-06-24 13:18:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.19990624061856.006d48c0@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 10:07 AM 6/24/99 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 wrote:
>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.
This sounds like a creative hack to me, if it actually works...it would
solve the problem I (and other users who do lots of fast tiny hits on the
db) see with my web serving site.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | José Soares | 1999-06-24 13:34:39 | Re: Mess |
| Previous Message | SAKAIDA | 1999-06-24 11:21:58 | regression bigtest needs very long time |