| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
| Date: | 2011-01-31 21:28:01 |
| Message-ID: | 8576.1296509281@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Back to the idea at hand - I proposed something a bit along these
> lines upthread, but my idea was to proactively perform the fsyncs on
> the relations that had gone the longest without a write, rather than
> the ones with the most dirty data.
Yeah. What I meant to suggest, but evidently didn't explain well, was
to use that or something much like it as the rule for deciding *what* to
fsync next, but to use amount-of-unsynced-data-versus-threshold as the
method for deciding *when* to do the next fsync.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-31 21:30:55 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-31 21:24:55 | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |