Re: Bgwriter behavior

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: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bgwriter behavior
Date: 2004-12-23 16:05:35
Message-ID: 29075.1103817935@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I remember the other difference between 8.0 and pre-8.0. When a backend
> has to write a block in 8.0, it does a write _plus_ fsync(), while in
> pre-8.0 it did only a write. There was a proposal to pass backend write
> information to the background writer so it would know to fsync at
> checkpoint, but it was decided that backend writing would be rare. I
> think we have to rethink that assumption.

No, just read the code. The above assertions are all wet.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-12-23 16:16:18 Re: Bgwriter behavior
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2004-12-23 16:03:01 Re: Connection without database name

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-12-23 16:16:18 Re: Bgwriter behavior
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-12-23 00:03:40 Re: error in pg_ctl.c