From: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:54:51 -0800
Message-ID: <20040208215450.GI2608@filer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E547AF40C@cuthbert.rcsinc.local>
References: <303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E547AF40C@cuthbert.rcsinc.local>
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > I have no idea whether or not this approach would work in Windows.
>
> The win32 API has ReadFileScatter/WriteFileScatter, which was developed
> to handle these types of problems. These two functions were added for
> the sole purpose of making SQL server run faster. They are always
> asynchronous and are very efficient. Perhaps the win32 port could just
> deal with the synchronization with an eye for future optimizations down
> the line?
The problem with the approach I described on win32 is that fast fork()s
are required for it to not significantly impact the running backends.
That is, fork() has to return quickly when called. I don't know whether
the implementation of fork() under win32 would be fast enough for
this purpose. It might be -- I don't have any experience with fork()
on win32 platforms so I can't say.
--
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: <20040208215450.GI2608@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