| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-07-01 18:17:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1372702646.19747.75.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 02:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Even in that case, if a user can easily know which platform posix_fallocate
> should be used in, we can commit the patch with the configurable GUC
> parameter.
I disagree here. We're not talking about a huge win; this speedup may
not even be detectable on a running system.
I think Robert summarized the reason for the patch best: "I mean, if
posix_fallocate() is faster, then it's just faster, right?". But if we
need a new GUC, and DBAs now have one more thing they need to test about
their platform, then that argument goes out the window.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-01 18:29:59 | Re: Move unused buffers to freelist |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-01 18:16:55 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |