Re: Background writer process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kurt Roeckx
Subject Re: Background writer process
Date
Msg-id 20031113220042.GA1218@ping.be
Whole thread Raw
In response to Background writer process  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Background writer process  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: cvs head? initdb?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Background writer process