Horton

Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Xu Yifeng <jamexu@telekbird.com.cn>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Xu Yifeng <jamexu@telekbird.com.cn>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-03-16T08:53:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hello Alfred,

Friday, March 16, 2001, 3:21:09 PM, you wrote:

AP> * Xu Yifeng <jamexu@telekbird.com.cn> [010315 22:25] wrote:
>>
>> Could anyone consider fork a syncer process to sync data to disk ?
>> build a shared sync queue, when a daemon process want to do sync after
>> write() is called, just put a sync request to the queue. this can release
>> process from blocked on writing as soon as possible. multipile sync
>> request for one file can be merged when the request is been inserting to
>> the queue.

AP> I suggested this about a year ago. :)

AP> The problem is that you need that process to potentially open and close
AP> many files over and over.

AP> I still think it's somewhat of a good idea.

I am not a DBMS guru.
couldn't the syncer process cache opened files? is there any problem I
didn't consider ?

-- 
Best regards,
Xu Yifeng