Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Brown
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Date
Msg-id 20040207123350.GH2608@filer
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> But that someplace else
> could easily be a process forked by the backend in question whose sole
> purpose is to go through the list of files generated by its parent backend
> and fsync() them.  The backend can then go about its business and upon
> receipt of the SIGCHLD notify anyone that needs to be notified that the
> fsync()s have completed.

Duh, what am I thinking?  Of course, the right answer is to have the
child notify anyone that needs notification that fsync()s are done.  No
need for involvement of the parent (i.e., the backend in question)
unless the architecture of PG requires it somehow.



-- 
Kevin Brown                          kevin@sysexperts.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Make failed in HEAD with make -j
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint