Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLW3Y6=EsPSR5T0iDQaatP6GmXe3n6DFktAU-UF6FVX8A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:53 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a new version.  The final thing I'm contemplating before
> pushing this is whether there may be hidden magical dependencies in
> the order of operations in CheckPointGuts(), which I've changed
> around.  Andres, any comments?

I nagged Andres off-list and he opined that it might be better to
reorder it a bit so that ProcessSyncRequests() comes after almost
everything else, so that if we ever teach more things to offload their
fsync work it'll be in the right order.  I reordered it like that; now
only CheckPointTwoPhase() comes later, based on the comment that
accompanies it.  In any case, we can always reconsider the ordering of
this function in later commits as required.  Pushed like that.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: history file on replica and double switchover
Next
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process