Re: [HACKERS] fsynch of pg_log write..

From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fsynch of pg_log write..
Date: 1999-06-28 01:22:08
Message-ID: 3776CE40.294AFFD@krs.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 wrote:
>
> Vadim wrote:
> > Right way is just set some flag in WriteBuffer()/WriteNoReleaseBuffer()
> > and don't do
> >
> > FlushBufferPool
> > TransactionIdCommit
> > FlushBufferPool
> >
> > at all when this flag is not setted.
> >
> While this is even much better for select only transactions
> it will still do the second flush for writers.
> This flush is not needed for those, that are only interested
> in consistency, and don't care if the last transaction before
> system/backend crash is lost.
> It can actually really only be the very last transaction reported
> ok to any client, that is rolled back, since all other xactions
> will be flushed by this same first FlushBufferPool
> (since BufferSync currently flushes all dirty Pages).
> So IMHO a switch to avoid the second FlushBufferPool
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> would still be useful, even with this suggested fix.

I didn't object this.

Vadim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-06-28 09:01:11 Re: [HACKERS] regression bigtest needs very long time
Previous Message sean dreilinger 1999-06-27 06:03:29 Re: [HACKERS] solution for psql segmentation fault ??