On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

True, recent API change meant they were slightly off.

> 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.


  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com

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


Reply via email to