From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Date: | 2001-03-15 20:20:09 |
Message-ID: | 200103152020.PAA15544@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Based on the tests we did last week, it seems clear than on many
> platforms it's a win to sync the WAL log by writing it with open()
> option O_SYNC (or O_DSYNC where available) rather than issuing explicit
> fsync() (resp. fdatasync()) calls. In theory fsync ought to be faster,
> but it seems that too many kernels have inefficient implementations of
> fsync.
Can someone explain why configure/platform-specific flags are allowed to
be added at this stage in the release, but my pgmonitor patch was
rejected?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-15 20:26:59 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-03-15 19:51:21 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |