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: