Re: [HACKERS] TODO item

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TODO item
Date: 2000-02-09 15:07:45
Message-ID: 5400.950108865@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> [ use a global sync instead of fsync ]

> 1. Does sync really wait for the completion of data be written on to
> disk?

Linux is *alone* among Unix platforms in waiting; every other
implementation of sync() returns as soon as the last dirty buffer
is scheduled to be written.

> 2. Are we suffered any performance penalty from sync?

A global sync at the completion of every xact would be disastrous for
the performance of anything else on the system.

> However, in most cases the system is dedicated for only PostgreSQL,

"Most cases"? Do you have any evidence for that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2000-02-09 15:09:25 Re: [HACKERS] TODO item
Previous Message Vince Daniels 2000-02-09 14:12:50 Re: Postgresql Perl Problem