| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, markw(at)osdl(dot)org |
| Cc: | manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, Q(at)ping(dot)be, markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking |
| Date: | 2004-03-25 19:10:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200403251110.55889.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Bruce,
> We don't actually extend the WAL file during writes (preallocated), and
> the access/modification timestamp is only in seconds, so I wonder of the
> OS only updates the inode once a second. What else would change in the
> inode more frequently than once a second?
What about really big writes, when WAL files are getting added/recycled?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2004-03-25 19:32:05 | Re: Nested transaction proposal - take N (N > 2) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-25 18:52:56 | Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | markw | 2004-03-25 21:46:56 | Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-25 18:52:56 | Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking |