Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Well, we're already not waiting for fsync, which is the slowest part.
> No, currently walsender waits for fsync. No, you're mistaken. > Walsender tries to send WAL up to xlogctl->LogwrtResult.Write. OTOH, > xlogctl->LogwrtResult.Write is updated after XLogWrite() performs fsync. Wrong. LogwrtResult.Write tracks how far we've written out data, but it is only (known to be) fsync'd as far as LogwrtResult.Flush. > But that change would cause the problem that Robert pointed out. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-06/msg00670.php Yes. Possibly walsender should only be allowed to send as far as LogwrtResult.Flush. 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
