Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> > That is part of the idea. The whole idea is to issue "physical" writes
> > at a fairly steady rate without increasing the number of them
> > substantial or interfering with the drives opinion about their order too
> > much. I think O_SYNC for random access can be in conflict with write
> > reordering.
>
> Good point. But if we issue lots of writes without fsync then we still
> have the problem of a write storm when the fsync finally occurs, while
> if we fsync too often then we constrain the write order too much. There
> will need to be some tuning here.
I know the BSD's have trickle sync --- if we write the dirty buffers to
kernel buffers many seconds before our checkpoint, the kernel might
right them to disk for use and sync() will not need to do it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
