From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |
Date: | 2007-06-09 07:39:19 |
Message-ID: | 20070609073919.GZ92628@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:16:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Thinking about this whole idea a bit more, it occured to me that the
> > current approach to write all, then fsync all is really a historical
> > artifact of the fact that we used to use the system-wide sync call
> > instead of fsyncs to flush the pages to disk. That might not be the best
> > way to do things in the new load-distributed-checkpoint world.
>
> > How about interleaving the writes with the fsyncs?
>
> I don't think it's a historical artifact at all: it's a valid reflection
> of the fact that we don't know enough about disk layout to do low-level
> I/O scheduling. Issuing more fsyncs than necessary will do little
> except guarantee a less-than-optimal scheduling of the writes.
If we extended relations by more than 8k at a time, we would know a lot
more about disk layout, at least on filesystems with a decent amount of
free space.
--
Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-06-09 08:01:19 | Re: GiST intarray rd-tree indexes using intbig |
Previous Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2007-06-09 07:34:21 | Re: Using the GPU |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2007-06-09 10:08:59 | Re: COPYable logs status |
Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2007-06-09 05:55:52 | Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately |