Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Spread checkpoint sync

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-01-31 21:30:55
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-31 21:24:55
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group