| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
| Date: | 2013-12-11 01:25:04 |
| Message-ID: | 15481.1386725104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
>> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints.
>> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an
>> impaired kernel cache.
> I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint.
Nonsense. We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information
needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something
intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O
is going on concurrently.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2013-12-11 01:27:04 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-12-11 01:09:19 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |