| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Date: | 2012-07-13 21:35:06 |
| Message-ID: | 26056.1342215306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I'm picking up this patch now. What I'm inclined to do about the -N
> business is to commit without that, so that we get a round of testing
> in the buildfarm and find out about any portability issues, but then
> change to use -N after a week or so. I agree that in the long run
> we don't want regression tests to run with fsyncs by default.
Committed without the -N in pg_regress (for now). I also stuck
sync_file_range into the backend's pg_flush_data --- it would be
interesting to hear measurements of whether that makes a noticeable
difference for CREATE DATABASE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-07-13 21:37:50 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-07-13 20:32:26 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |