On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:02:11PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I believe there's something similar for OS X as well. The question is: > > > would it be better to do that, or to just delay calling fsync until the > > > OS has had a chance to write things out. > > > > A delay is not going to help unless you can suppress additional writes > > to the file, which I don't think you can unless there's very little > > going on in the database --- dirty buffers have to get written to make > > room for other pages, checkpoint in progress or no. > > I am afraid a delay between write and fsync is the only portable option > we have right now --- there is hope that since the check point write, we > will not have a huge number of dirty buffers at the start of the > checkpoint that need to be written out.
We could potentially control that behavior, too. For example, trying to suppress writes to a given file when we're getting ready to checkpoint it (of course, separating checkpointing into a file-by-file operation is a non-trivial change, but it should be possible). -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
