> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > It could be tough. Imagine the delay increasing to 3 seconds? Seems
> > there has to be an upper bound on the sleep. The more you delay, the
> > more likely you will be to find someone to fsync you.
>
> Good point, and an excellent illustration of the fact that
> self-adjusting algorithms aren't that easy to get right the first
> time ;-)
I see. I am concerned that anything done to 7.1 at this point may cause
problems with performance under certain circumstances. Let's see what
the new code shows our testers.
>
> > Are we waking processes up after we have fsync()'ed them?
>
> Not at the moment. That would be another good mechanism to investigate
> for 7.2; but right now there's no infrastructure that would allow a
> backend to discover which other ones were sleeping for fsync.
Can we put the backends to sleep waiting for a lock, and have them wake
up later?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
