| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpoint reliability |
| Date: | 2001-12-19 04:10:20 |
| Message-ID: | 200112190410.fBJ4AKr18862@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I was wondering, when we start to reuse a WAL file, do we know that all
> > dirty buffers modified in that WAL file have been flushed to disk?
>
> Yes. At least two checkpoints ago, in fact.
So when we decide to reuse a shared memory buffer and write it to disk,
do we fsync it, or do we run a file sync() to force all dirty buffers to
disk?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-12-19 04:29:24 | Re: problems with table corruption continued |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-19 04:06:34 | Re: checkpoint reliability |