On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > What's the thing about doing the flush twice in a couple of comments in
> > calls to XLogBackgroundFlush? Are they just leftover comments from
> > older code?
>
> I was wondering that too --- they looked like obsolete comments to me.
True, recent API change meant they were slightly off.
> My current thinking BTW is that trying to make XLogBackgroundFlush serve
> two purposes is counterproductive. It should be dedicated to use by the
> walwriter only, and the checkpoint case should simply read the async
> commit pointer and call regular XLogFlush with it.
OK
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com