| 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: | 2001-03-16 05:26:36 |
| Message-ID: | 200103160526.AAA13962@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > My question was what are we needing to test? If we can do only single writes
> > to the log, don't we prefer O_* to fsync, and the O_D* options over
> > plain O_*? Am I confused?
>
> I don't think we have enough data to conclude that with any certainty.
I just figured we knew the answers to above issues, that that the only
issue was multiple writes vs. fsync().
It is hard for me to imagine O_* being slower than fsync(), or fdatasync
being slower than fsync. Are we not able to assume that?
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2001-03-16 05:54:54 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-16 05:23:31 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |