| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-05-30 12:58:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20130530125826.GE14029@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-05-30 08:53:37 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > But really, I am not at all concerned about some obscure values being
> > returned, but about a read() not being successful..
>
> Alright, so what do we need to do to test this? We really just need a
> short C program written up and then a bunch of folks to run it on
> various architectures, right?
After a bit of standard perusing writing a single byte to the end of the
file after the fallocate ought to make at least the reading guaranteed
to be defined. If we did seek(last_byte); write(); posix_fallocate() we
should even always have defined content. Yuck.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-30 13:15:39 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-30 12:53:37 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |