Re: [HACKERS] WAL fsync scheduling

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Other backend will see they are not the lowest
> WAIT_ON_FSYNC and will wait for their byte to be set to NOT_IN_COMMIT
> so they can then continue, knowing their data was synced.

How will they wait?  Without a semaphore involved, your answer must
be either "timed sleep" or "busy-wait loop", neither of which is
attractive ...

                        regards, tom lane