Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Load distributed checkpoint

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Date: 2006-12-30 02:02:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > I believe there's something similar for OS X as well. The question is:
> > would it be better to do that, or to just delay calling fsync until the
> > OS has had a chance to write things out.
> A delay is not going to help unless you can suppress additional writes
> to the file, which I don't think you can unless there's very little
> going on in the database --- dirty buffers have to get written to make
> room for other pages, checkpoint in progress or no.

I am afraid a delay between write and fsync is the only portable option
we have right now --- there is hope that since the check point write, we
will not have a huge number of dirty buffers at the start of the
checkpoint that need to be written out.

  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-12-30 02:30:21
Subject: Re: psql possible TODO
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-30 01:59:34
Subject: Re: psql possible TODO

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-12-30 04:08:04
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2006-12-29 23:08:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group