On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > That sounds a little like you are proposing to go back to the way
> > things were before 806a2aee3791244bf0f916729bfdb5489936e068 (and,
> > belatedly, bf405ba8e460051e715d0a91442b579e590328ce) although I guess
> > the division of labor wouldn't be quite the same.
>
> But is there an argument against it? The checkpointer would still be
> creating checkpoints including running fsync, but the background
> writer would be, erm, writing, erm, in the background.
I don't know. I guess the fact that the checkpointer is still
performing the fsyncs is probably a key point. I mean, in the old
division of labor, fsyncs could interrupt the background writing that
was supposed to be happening.
> I'm not sure if it matters whether we send the fd before or after the
> write, but we still need some kind of global ordering of fds that can
> order a given fd with respect to writes in other processes, so the
> patch introduces a global shared counter captured immediately after
> open() (including when reopened in the vfd machinery).
But how do you make reading that counter atomic with the open() itself?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
