Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2019-03-01 18:15:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmobqzMkSnWBHcTYqxwQhL3MahX-cpWzs2sVJ4219ciAYGA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:43 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Obviously it's nicer looking this way, but OTOH, that means we have to
> send more data over the queue, because we can't easily combine the
> request + "owner". I don't have too strong feelings about it though.

Yeah, I would lean toward combining those.

--
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 Adrien NAYRAT 2019-03-01 18:17:47 Re: Log a sample of transactions
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-03-01 18:04:38 Re: Infinity vs Error for division by zero