From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bgwriter behavior |
Date: | 2004-12-22 05:02:14 |
Message-ID: | 29385.1103691734@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The only way I could see it being worse than pre-8.0 is that the
> bgwriter is doing fsync of all open files rather than using sync. Other
> than that, I think it should behave the same, or slightly better,
> right?
It's possible that there exist platforms on which this is a loss ---
that is, the OS's handling of fsync is so inefficient that multiple
fsync calls are worse than one sync call even though less I/O is forced.
But I haven't seen any actual evidence of that; and if such platforms
do exist I'm not sure I'd blink anyway. We are not required to optimize
for brain-dead kernels.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2004-12-22 07:52:02 | Re: Thoughts about updateable views |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-22 04:50:44 | Re: Bgwriter behavior |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2004-12-22 05:05:09 | Re: uptime function to postmaster |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-12-22 05:00:38 | Re: uptime function to postmaster |