On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> It does open the door to various other uses, so I think this work will > be useful. Yes, I think this would allow a better design for the checkpointer. Checkpoint scan will collect buffers to write for checkpoint and sort them by fileid, like Koichi/Itagaki already suggested. We then do all the writes for a particular file, then issue a background sync_file_range, then sleep a little. Loop. At end of loop, collect up and close the sync_file_range calls with a SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER. So we're interleaving the writes and fsyncs throughout the whole checkpoint, not bursting the fsyncs at the end. With that design we would just have a continuous checkpoint, rather than having 0,5 or 0.9 -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
