From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 06:03:04 |
Message-ID: | 1185256984.4263.4.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
True, recent API change meant they were slightly off.
> 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.
OK
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-24 06:14:15 | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-24 06:01:21 | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |