From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net |
Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |
Date: | 2000-02-09 15:09:25 |
Message-ID: | 20000210000925F.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > It seems that sync(2) blocks until data is written. So it would be ok
> > at least with Linux. I'm not sure about other platforms, though.
>
> It is incorrect to assume that sync() wait until all buffers are
> flushed on any other platform than Linux, I didn't think
> that Linux even did so but the kernel sources say yes.
Right. I have looked at Linux kernel sources and confirmed it.
> Solaris doesn't do this and niether does FreeBSD/NetBSD.
I'm not sure about Solaris since I don't have an access to its source
codes. Will look at FreeBSD kernel sources.
> I guess if you wanted to implement this for linux only then it would
> work, you ought to then also warn people that a non-dedicated db server
> could experiance different performance using this code.
I just want to have more choices other than with/without -F. With -F
looses ACID, without it implies per-page-fsync. Both choices are
painful. But switching to expensive commercial DBMSs is much more
painful at least for me.
Even if it would be usefull on Linux only and in a certain situation,
it would better than nothing IMHO (until WAL comes up).
--
Tatsuo Ishii
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-02-09 15:50:24 | AW: [HACKERS] TODO item |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-09 15:07:45 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO item |