| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | stefan(at)drees(dot)name, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-06-11 16:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20130611165837.GQ7200@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> It's understood that posix_fallocate is faster at this -- the question
> on the table is 'does this matter in context of postgres?'.
> Personally I think this patch should go in regardless -- the concerns
> made IMNSHO are specious.
I've not had a chance to look at this patch, but I tend to agree with
Merlin. My main question is really- would this be useful for extending
*relations*? Apologies if it's already been discussed; I do plan to go
back and read the threads about this more fully, but I wanted to voice
my support for using posix_fallocate, when available, in general.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2013-06-11 17:01:03 | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-06-11 16:54:31 | Re: DO ... RETURNING |