| 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: | 200612300202.kBU22Bv04450@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-12-30 02:30:21 | Re: psql possible TODO |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-30 01:59:34 | Re: psql possible TODO |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-12-30 04:08:04 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-12-29 23:08:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD |