Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code
Date: 2003-11-16 16:58:12
Message-ID: 28414.1069001892@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One reason I like the idea of adopting a sync-when-you-write policy is
>> that it eliminates the need for anything as messy as that.

> Yes, but can we do it without causing a performance degredation, and I
> would hate to change something to make things easier on Win32 while
> penalizing all platforms.

Having to keep a list of modified files in shared memory isn't a penalty?

Seriously though, if we can move the bulk of the writing work into
background processes then I don't believe that there will be any
significant penalty for regular backends. And I believe that it would
be a huge advantage from a correctness point of view if we could stop
depending on sync(). The fact that Windows hasn't got sync() is merely
another reason we should stop using it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Spraul 2003-11-16 17:19:05 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2003-11-16 16:53:32 Re: cvs head? initdb?

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Spraul 2003-11-16 17:19:05 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-16 16:36:54 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-16 17:04:42 Re: SIGPIPE handling
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-16 16:36:54 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code