Jan Wieck wrote: > That is all right and as said, how often, how much and how forced we do > the IO can all be configurable and as flexible as people see fit. But > whether you use sync(), fsync(), fdatasync(), O_SYNC, O_DSYNC or > posix_fadvise(), somewhere you have to do the write(). And that write > has to be coordinated with the buffer cache replacement strategy so that > you write those buffers that are likely to be replaced soon, and don't > write those that the strategy thinks keeping for longer anyway. Except > at a checkpoint, then you have to write whatever is dirty. > > The patch I posted does this write() in coordination with the strategy > in a separate background process, so that the regular backends don't > have to write under normal circumstances (there are some places in DDL > statements that call BufferSync(), that's exceptions IMHO). Can we agree > on this general outline? Or do we have any better proposals?
Agreed. Background write() is a win on all all OS's. It is just the kernel to disk part we will have to have configurable, I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
