Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-15 19:45:46
Message-ID: 14892.984685546@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> And since we're sorta on the topic of IO, I noticed that it looks
> like (at least in 7.0.3) that vacuum and certain other routines
> read files in reverse order.

Vacuum does that because it's trying to push tuples down from the end
into free space in earlier blocks. I don't see much way around that
(nor any good reason to think that it's a critical part of vacuum's
performance anyway). Where else have you seen such behavior?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2001-03-15 19:51:21 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-03-15 19:43:28 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC