From: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 04:33:51 -0800
Message-ID: <20040207123350.GH2608@filer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040207035541.GG2608@filer>
References: <16010.1075485076@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<200402011333.i11DXmp29214@candle.pha.pa.us>
<20040203103605.GC2608@filer>
<17806.1075820734@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20040204213634.GF2608@filer>
<22762.1075937339@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20040207035541.GG2608@filer>
I wrote:
> But that someplace else
> could easily be a process forked by the backend in question whose sole
> purpose is to go through the list of files generated by its parent backend
> and fsync() them. The backend can then go about its business and upon
> receipt of the SIGCHLD notify anyone that needs to be notified that the
> fsync()s have completed.
Duh, what am I thinking? Of course, the right answer is to have the
child notify anyone that needs notification that fsync()s are done. No
need for involvement of the parent (i.e., the backend in question)
unless the architecture of PG requires it somehow.
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: kevin@sysexperts.com
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
In-Reply-To: <20040207123350.GH2608@filer>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox