Re: WAL & SHM principles

From: Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Martin Devera <devik(at)cdi(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL & SHM principles
Date: 2001-03-10 22:00:53
Message-ID: 5418.984261653@nemeton.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> When you mmap, you don't use write() ! mlock actualy locks page in
> memory and as long as the page is locked the OS doesn't attempt to
> store the dirty page. It is intended also for security app to
> ensure that sensitive data are not written to unsecure storage
> (hdd). It is definition of mlock so that you can be probably sure
> with it.

News to me ... can you please point to such a definition? I see no
reference to such semantics in the mlock() manual page in UNIX98
(Single Unix Standard, version 2).

mlock() guarantees that the locked address space is in memory. This
doesn't imply that updates are not written to the backing file.

I would expect an OS that doesn't have a unified buffer cache but
tries to keep a consistent view for mmap() and read()/write() to
update the file.

Regards,

Giles

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Giles Lean 2001-03-10 22:02:16 Re: Internationalized error messages
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-10 16:12:08 Re: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace