Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> 1) moved the posix_fadvise call to a new fd.c function
> pg_fsync_start(fd,offset,nbytes) which initiates an fsync without
> waiting on it. Currently it's only implemented with
> posix_fadvise(DONT_NEED) but I want to look into using sync_file_range
> in the future -- it looks like this call might be good enough for our
> checkpoints.
That function *seriously* needs documentation, in particular the fact
that it's a no-op on machines without the right kernel call. The name
you've chosen is very bad for those semantics. I'd pick something
else myself. Maybe "pg_start_data_flush" or something like that?
Other than that quibble it seems basically sane.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
