Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3593.1075998120@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net> writes:
> There are other benefits of writing pages earlier even though they might not
> get synced immediately.
Such as?
> It would tell kernel that this is latest copy of updated buffer. Kernel VFS
> should make that copy visible to every other backend as well. The buffer
> manager will fetch the updated copy from VFS cache next time. All without
> going to disk actually..(Within the 30 seconds window of course..)
This seems quite irrelevant given the way we handle shared buffers.
> frequent fsyncs or frequent fsyncs per file descriptor written? I thought it
> was later.
You can only fsync one FD at a time (too bad ... if there were a
multi-file-fsync API it'd solve the overspecified-write-ordering issue).
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: