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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Date
Msg-id 3593.1075998120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint  (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint  (Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net> writes:
> There are other benefits of writing pages earlier even though they might not 
> get synced immediately.

Such as?

> It would tell kernel that this is latest copy of updated buffer. Kernel VFS 
> should make that copy visible to every other backend as well. The buffer 
> manager will fetch the updated copy from VFS cache next time. All without 
> going to disk actually..(Within the 30 seconds window of course..)

This seems quite irrelevant given the way we handle shared buffers.

> frequent fsyncs or frequent fsyncs per file descriptor written? I thought it 
> was later.

You can only fsync one FD at a time (too bad ... if there were a
multi-file-fsync API it'd solve the overspecified-write-ordering issue).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR Dead horse?
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: dollar quoting