| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Date: | 2001-03-16 15:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3AB22D37.8B46E06C@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Okay ... we can fall back to O_FSYNC if we don't see either of the
> > others. No problem. Any other weird cases out there? I think Andreas
> > might've muttered something about AIX but I'm not sure now.
> You can safely use O_DSYNC on AIX, the only special on AIX is,
> that it does not make a speed difference to O_SYNC. This is imho
> because the jfs only needs one sync write to the jfs journal for meta info
> in eighter case (so that nobody misunderstands: both perform excellent).
Hmm. Does everyone run jfs on AIX, or are there other file systems
available? The same issue should be raised for Linux (at least): have we
tried test cases with both journaling and non-journaling file systems?
Perhaps the flag choice would be markedly different for the different
options?
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2001-03-16 15:15:28 | ["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>] Re: O_DSYNC flag for open |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-16 15:11:30 | Re: Re[2]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |