From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |
Date: | 2010-12-07 00:41:06 |
Message-ID: | 4CFD82A2.3040405@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/5/10 2:12 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I modified test_fsync in two ways to run this; first, to make it support
>> O_DIRECT, and second to make it run in the *current* directory.
>
> Patch please? I agree with the latter change; what test_fsync does is
> surprising.
Attached.
Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
as a seperate option.
> I suggested a while ago that we refactor test_fsync to use a common set
> of source code as the database itself for detecting things related to
> wal_sync_method, perhaps just extract that whole set of DEFINE macro
> logic to somewhere else. That happened at a bad time in the development
> cycle (right before a freeze) and nobody ever got back to the idea
> afterwards. If this code is getting touched, and it's clear it is in
> some direction, I'd like to see things change so it's not possible for
> the two to diverge again afterwards.
I don't quite follow you. Maybe nobody else did last time, either.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
test_fsync.patch | text/x-patch | 700 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Singer | 2010-12-07 00:43:15 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-07 00:22:09 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |