X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FC2D1C9E1 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:33:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35682-06 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:33:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from filer (c-24-6-183-218.client.comcast.net [24.6.183.218]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC21CD1C995 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:33:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by filer with local; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:33:51 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 04:33:51 -0800 From: Kevin Brown To: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint Message-ID: <20040207123350.GH2608@filer> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Brown , PostgreSQL-development 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040207035541.GG2608@filer> Organization: Frobozzco International User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/254 X-Sequence-Number: 49843 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