From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | AW: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace |
Date: | 2001-03-09 19:01:28 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336823B@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> This seems odd. As near as I can tell, O_SYNC is simply a command to do
> >> fsync implicitly during each write call. It cannot save any I/O unless
> >> I'm missing something significant. Where is the performance difference
> >> coming from?
>
> > Yes, odd, but sure very reproducible here.
>
> I tried this on HPUX 10.20, which has not only O_SYNC but also O_DSYNC
AIX has O_DSYNC (which is _FDATASYNC) too, but I assumed O_SYNC
would be more portable. Now we have two, maybe it is more widespread
than I thought.
> I attach my modified version of Andreas' program. Note I do
> not believe his assertion that close() implies fsync() --- on the machines I've
> used, it demonstrably does not sync.
Ok, I am not sure, but essentially do we need it to sync ? The OS sure isn't
supposed to notice after closing the file, that it ran out of disk space.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Bixby | 2001-03-09 19:11:07 | porting question: funky uid names? |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-03-09 18:44:49 | AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from out-of -dis k-sp ace |