Re: fstat vs. lseek

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com>
Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek
Date: 2011-09-16 13:30:30
Message-ID: 201109161530.30603.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday 16 Sep 2011 15:19:07 Andrea Suisani wrote:
> hi
>
> On 08/08/2011 07:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> If its ok I will write a mail to lkml referencing this thread and your
> >> numbers inline (with attribution obviously).
> >
> > That would be great. Please go ahead.
>
> I've just stumbled across this thread on lkml [1]
> "Improve lseek scalability v3".
>
> and I thought to ping pgsql hackers list
> just in case, more to the point they're
> asking "are there any real workloads which care
> [Make generic lseek lockless safe]"
I wrote them a mail sometime ago (some weeks) regarding an earlier version of
the patch... Can't find it right now though.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2011-09-16 13:46:35 Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Previous Message Susanne Ebrecht 2011-09-16 13:26:55 Re: Is there really no interest in SQL Standard?