Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> What about the mmap/msync(?)/munmap idea someone mentioned?
> I see that as similar to using O_DIRECT during checkpoint, which had > poor performance. That's a complete nonstarter on portability grounds, even if msync gave us the desired semantics, which it doesn't. It's no better than fsync for our purposes. To my mind the problem with fsync is not that it gives us too little control but that it gives too much: we have to specify a particular order of writing out files. What we'd really like is a version of sync(2) that tells us when it's done but doesn't constrain the I/O scheduler's choices at all. Unfortunately there's no such API ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate