Greg Stark <gsstark@xxxxxxx> writes: > 1) moved the posix_fadvise call to a new fd.c function > pg_fsync_start(fd,offset,nbytes) which initiates an fsync without > waiting on it. Currently it's only implemented with > posix_fadvise(DONT_NEED) but I want to look into using sync_file_range > in the future -- it looks like this call might be good enough for our > checkpoints. That function *seriously* needs documentation, in particular the fact that it's a no-op on machines without the right kernel call. The name you've chosen is very bad for those semantics. I'd pick something else myself. Maybe "pg_start_data_flush" or something like that? Other than that quibble it seems basically sane. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
