Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sdn(at)amazon(dot)com, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2018-11-20 19:09:59
Message-ID: CA+TgmobJDfSZ2x_vic5ZoheVcJBn-AmnndUs_99vzP9VStnBuA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Or to put it another way, you can't be given a lower sequence number
> than another process that has already written, because that other
> process must have been given a sequence number before it wrote.

OK, that makes sense.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-11-20 19:39:28 Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-11-20 18:30:38 Re: CF app feature request