Re: SRA Win32 sync() code - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SRA Win32 sync() code
Date
Msg-id 28414.1069001892@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SRA Win32 sync() code  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SRA Win32 sync() code  (Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>)
Re: SRA Win32 sync() code  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One reason I like the idea of adopting a sync-when-you-write policy is
>> that it eliminates the need for anything as messy as that.

> Yes, but can we do it without causing a performance degredation, and I
> would hate to change something to make things easier on Win32 while
> penalizing all platforms.

Having to keep a list of modified files in shared memory isn't a penalty?

Seriously though, if we can move the bulk of the writing work into
background processes then I don't believe that there will be any
significant penalty for regular backends.  And I believe that it would
be a huge advantage from a correctness point of view if we could stop
depending on sync().  The fact that Windows hasn't got sync() is merely
another reason we should stop using it.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: SRA Win32 sync() code
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling