Re: [HACKERS] WAL fsync scheduling

[Bruce Momjian]

> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001117 23:21]:
> > 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 ...
> how about sigpause, and using SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2 to wake them up ? 

Looks like a winner.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026