| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Pgsql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes |
| Date: | 2002-10-07 21:18:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1034025517.14350.241.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 16:06, Curtis Faith wrote:
> > Well, too bad. If you haven't gotten your commit record down to disk,
> > then *you have not committed*. This is not negotiable. (If you think
> > it is, then turn off fsync and quit worrying ;-))
>
At this point, I think we've come full circle. Can we all agree that
this concept is a *potential* source of improvement in a variety of
situations? If we can agree on that, perhaps we should move to the next
stage in the process, validation?
How long do you think it would take to develop something worthy of
testing? Do we have known test cases which will properly (in)validate
the approach that everyone will agree to? If code is reasonably clean
so as to pass the smell test and shows a notable performance boost, will
it be seriously considered for inclusion? If so, I assume it would
become a configure option (--with-aio)?
Regards,
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-10-07 21:23:38 | Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-10-07 21:15:34 | inline newNode() |