Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the thing about doing the flush twice in a couple of comments in
> calls to XLogBackgroundFlush?  Are they just leftover comments from
> older code?

I was wondering that too --- they looked like obsolete comments to me.

My current thinking BTW is that trying to make XLogBackgroundFlush serve
two purposes is counterproductive.  It should be dedicated to use by the
walwriter only, and the checkpoint case should simply read the async
commit pointer and call regular XLogFlush with it.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to