On 1 June 2012 14:59, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 1 June 2012 14:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Surely that commit is useless. Fsync requests go into a queue in shared >>> memory, which had better have been set up by the postmaster. There is >>> no requirement that the receiving process exist before somebody can put >>> a request into the queue. If the queue overflows, the requestor has to >>> take care of the fsync itself, but that is independent of whether the >>> checkpointer is running yet. > >> The problem I saw was about fsync queue message overflow, not actually >> missing fsyncs, so perhaps I worded the commit message poorly. > > Ah. Well, as long as the overflowed fsyncs do get handled on the > requesting side, I see no bug here. No objection to changing the order > in which we launch the processes, but as Heikki says, it's not clear > that that is really going to make much difference.
If I see those messages again, I guess you'll be right. If that happens I suggest just adding a short wait at bgwriter startup. -- 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
