| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Win32 port list" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |
| Date: | 2004-03-11 09:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D019@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> Consider either a box with many different postgresql instances, or one
> that run both postgresql and other software. Issuing sync() in that
> sitaution will cause sync of a lot of data that probably doesn't need
> syncing.
> But it'd probably be a very good thing on a dedicated server, giving the
> kernel the chance to optimise.
It is not like the sync is done every few seconds ! It is currently done
every 5 minutes (I actually think this is too frequent now that we have
bgwriter, 10 - 20 min would be sufficient). So imho even on a heavily
otherwise used system the sync will be better.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-03-11 09:42:55 | Re: unsafe floats |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-03-11 09:04:38 | Re: fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-03-11 17:51:09 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-03-11 09:04:38 | Re: fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |