| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, stefan(at)drees(dot)name, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-06-14 17:24:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1371230692.27844.36.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> My main question is really- would this be useful for extending
> *relations*? Apologies if it's already been discussed; I do plan to go
> back and read the threads about this more fully, but I wanted to voice
> my support for using posix_fallocate, when available, in general.
+1, though separate from this patch.
Andres also pointed out that we can try to track a point in the file
that is below any place where a zero page might still exist. That will
allow us to call zero pages invalid unless they are related to a recent
extension, which is a weakness in the current checksums code.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-14 17:38:36 | another error perhaps to be enhanced |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-06-14 17:21:38 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |