From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Background writer process |
Date: | 2003-11-19 16:08:35 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4962070@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >>1. Open WAL files with O_SYNC|O_DIRECT or O_SYNC(Not sure if
> > Without grouping WAL writes that does not fly. Iff however such grouping
> > is implemented that should deliver optimal performance. I don't think flushing
> > WAL to the OS early (before a tx commits) is necessary, since writing 8k or 256k
> > to disk with one call takes nearly the same time. The WAL write would need to be
> > done as soon as eighter 256k fill or a txn commits.
>
> That means no special treatment to WAL files? If it works, great. There would be
> single class of files to take care w.r.t sync. issue. Even more simpler.
No, WAL needs special handling. Eighter leave it as is with write + f[data]sync,
or implement O_SYNC|O_DIRECT with grouping of writes (the current O_SYNC implementation
is only good for small (<8kb) transactions).
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Sceifers | 2003-11-19 16:17:08 | question about fixes in v7.4... |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-11-19 16:07:55 | Re: A big thanks to SuSE |