From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Date: | 2001-03-15 20:30:03 |
Message-ID: | 200103152030.PAA16012@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > 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.
>
> I don't remember big difference in using fsync or O_SYNC in tfsync
> tests. Both depend on block size and keeping in mind that fsync
> allows us syncing after writing *multiple* blocks I would either
> use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all.
I see what you are saying. That the OS may be faster at fsync'ing two
blocks in one operation rather than doing to O_SYNC operations.
Seems we should just pick a default and leave the rest for a later
release. Marc wants RC1 tomorrow, I think.
--
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 20:32:08 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-15 20:29:23 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |