Re: Background writer process

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Kurt Roeckx
Тема Re: Background writer process
Дата
Msg-id 20031113220042.GA1218@ping.be
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Background writer process  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Ответы Re: Background writer process
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of 
> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often 
> to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not 
> change the real checkpointing at all, and the general framework having a 
> separate process is what we probably want.

Why is the sync() needed at all?  My understanding was that it
was only needed in case of a checkpoint.


Kurt



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Treat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: cvs head? initdb?
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Background writer process