Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

> * William K. Volkman <wkv(at)hiscorp(dot)net> [010318 11:56] wrote:
> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > >>
> > > But, with shared libraries, are you really pulling in a "whole
> > > thread-support library"? My understanding of shared libraries (altho it
> > > may be totally off) was that instead of pulling in a whole library, you
> > > pulled in the bits that you needed, pretty much as you needed them ...
> >
> > Just by making a thread call libc changes personality to use thread
> > safe routines (I.E. add mutex locking). Use one thread feature, get
> > the whole set...which may not be that bad.
>
> Actually it can be pretty bad. Locked bus cycles needed for mutex
> operations are very, very expensive, not something you want to do
> unless you really really need to do it.

And don't forget buggy implementations.

--
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