AW: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Christopher Kings-Lynne'" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Date: 2000-11-28 09:49:09
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336814A@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> I don't believe it's a performance issue, I believe it's that
> writes to
> blocks greater than 8k cannot be guaranteed 'atomic' by the operating
> system. Hence, 32k blocks would break the transactions system. (Or
> something like that - am I correct?)

First, 8k are not atomic eighter. Second, the page layout in PostgreSQL has been
designed to not care about the atomicity of IO. This design might have been
compromised for index pages recently, to optimize index performance,
but data pages are perfectly safe.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-11-28 09:51:28 AW: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2000-11-28 09:27:51 Re: Full text Indexing -out of contrib and into main..