| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Date: | 2006-12-20 13:48:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20061220134846.GF12639@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:14:50PM +0900, Takayuki Tsunakawa wrote:
> > That implies that fsyncing a datafile blocks fsyncing the WAL. That
> > seems terribly unlikely (although...). What OS/Kernel/Filesystem is
> > this. I note a sync bug in linux for ext3 that may have relevence.
>
> Oh, really? What bug? I've heard that ext3 reports wrong data to
> iostat when it performs writes (the data is correct when performing
> reads.)
I was referring to this in the 2.6.6 changelog:
http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/changelog/v2.6/6/index.html
ext3's fsync/fdatasync implementation is currently syncing the inode via a
full journal commit even if it was unaltered.
However you're running a later version so that's not it.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-20 13:59:21 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-20 13:38:30 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-20 13:59:21 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-20 13:38:30 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |