Re: [HACKERS] WAL fsync scheduling

[Larry Rosenman]

* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001117 23:21]:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Other backend will see they are not the lowest
> > WAIT_ON_FSYNC and will wait for their byte to be set to NOT_IN_COMMIT
> > so they can then continue, knowing their data was synced.
> 
> How will they wait?  Without a semaphore involved, your answer must
> be either "timed sleep" or "busy-wait loop", neither of which is
> attractive ...
how about sigpause, and using SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2 to wake them up ? 

> 
>                       regards, tom lane
-- 
Larry Rosenman                      http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749