On 2016-01-09 18:04:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On 2016-01-07 11:27:13 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > I read your patch and I know what I want to try to have a small and > simple > > > fix. I must admit that I have not really understood in which condition > the > > > checkpointer would decide to close a file, but that does not mean that > the > > > potential issue should not be addressed. > > > > There's a trivial example: Consider three tablespaces and > > max_files_per_process = 2. The balancing can easily cause three files > > being flushed at the same time. > > > > Won't the same thing can occur without patch in mdsync() and can't > we handle it in same way? In particular, I am referring to below code:
I don't see how that's corresponding - the problem is that current proposed infrastructure keeps a kernel level (or fd.c in my versio) fd open in it's 'pending flushes' struct. But since that isn't associated with fd.c opening/closing files that fd isn't very meaningful. > mdsync() That seems to address different issues. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
