Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thinking about this whole idea a bit more, it occured to me that the > current approach to write all, then fsync all is really a historical > artifact of the fact that we used to use the system-wide sync call > instead of fsyncs to flush the pages to disk. That might not be the best > way to do things in the new load-distributed-checkpoint world.
> How about interleaving the writes with the fsyncs? I don't think it's a historical artifact at all: it's a valid reflection of the fact that we don't know enough about disk layout to do low-level I/O scheduling. Issuing more fsyncs than necessary will do little except guarantee a less-than-optimal scheduling of the writes. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly