On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What's the thing about doing the flush twice in a couple of comments in > > calls to XLogBackgroundFlush? Are they just leftover comments from > > older code? > > I was wondering that too --- they looked like obsolete comments to me.
True, recent API change meant they were slightly off. > My current thinking BTW is that trying to make XLogBackgroundFlush serve > two purposes is counterproductive. It should be dedicated to use by the > walwriter only, and the checkpoint case should simply read the async > commit pointer and call regular XLogFlush with it. OK -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
