Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vadim Mikheev
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date
Msg-id 375A6C90.4A299AA9@krs.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Kaare Rasmussen <kar@webline.dk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
List pgsql-hackers
Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> 
> > I think we need that, and it should be the default, but few people agree
> > with me.  I have some schemes to do this.

I remember this, Bruce. But I would like to see it implemented
in right way. I'm not happy with "two sync() in postmaster" idea.
We have to implement Shared Catalog Cache (SCC), mark all dirtied 
relation files there and than just fsync() these files, before 
fsync() of pg_log.

> To counter this, I think Postgresql needs some roll forward mechanism.
> Maybe that's what Vadim means with savepoints? Now we're at the

No. Savepoints are short-term things, living during xaction.

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Next
From: Axel Thomas
Date:
Subject: !!!!I NEED A DE-COMPILER!!!!