Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size
Date
Msg-id 282731b1-15dc-c36d-9470-89b142b096cd@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size  (Vladimir Mihailenco <vladimir.webdev@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size  (Vladimir Mihailenco <vladimir.webdev@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 09/24/2017 11:03 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote:
> Thanks for your response. Ss I understand it now the difference is
> that checkpoints are synchronous but dirty pages eviction from shared
> buffers are asynchronous, correct? How then Postgres ensures that OS
> writes data to the disk so WAL can be deleted?
> 

The last step in a checkpoin is fsync() on the files. Without that, the
checkpoint is considered incomplete and the database won't rely on it.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Mihailenco
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size
Next
From: hvjunk
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] "alter table...if exists... add bigserial "still adds extra sequence