Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Back to the idea at hand - I proposed something a bit along these
> lines upthread, but my idea was to proactively perform the fsyncs on
> the relations that had gone the longest without a write, rather than
> the ones with the most dirty data.
Yeah. What I meant to suggest, but evidently didn't explain well, was
to use that or something much like it as the rule for deciding *what* to
fsync next, but to use amount-of-unsynced-data-versus-threshold as the
method for deciding *when* to do the next fsync.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-31 21:30:55|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-31 21:24:55|
|Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |