Robert Haas wrote: > Back to the idea at hand - I proposed something a bit along these > lines upthread, but my idea was to proactively perform the fsyncs on > the relations that had gone the longest without a write, rather than > the ones with the most dirty data. I'm not sure which is better. > Obviously, doing the ones that have "gone idle" gives the OS more time > to write out the data, but OTOH it might not succeed in purging much > dirty data. Doing the ones with the most dirty data will definitely > reduce the size of the final checkpoint, but might also cause a > latency spike if it's triggered immediately after heavy write activity > on that file.
Crazy idea #2 --- it would be interesting if you issued an fsync _before_ you wrote out data to a file that needed an fsync. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
