| 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: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Background writer process |
| Date: | 2003-11-14 18:47:17 |
| Message-ID: | 3094.1068835637@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable
>> compramise? Or this is going to use fsync for all of them.
> I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes backends are
> going to have to write their own buffers, and we don't want them using
> fsync or it will be very slow.
sync() for WAL is a complete nonstarter, because it gives you no
guarantees at all about whether the write has occurred. I don't really
care what you say about speed; this is a correctness point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-14 18:49:59 | Re: Help with count(*) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-14 18:42:59 | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |