Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date: 2013-07-05 07:23:20
Message-ID: 51D67468.1080705@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/5/13 2:50 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> So, my simple conclusion is that glibc emulation should be about the
> same as what we're doing now, so there's no reason to avoid it. That
> means, if posix_fallocate() is present, we should use it, because it's
> either the same (if emulated in glibc) or significantly faster (if
> implemented in the kernel).

That's what I'm seeing everywhere too. I'm happy that we've spent
enough time chasing after potential issues without finding anything now.
Pull out the GUC that was added for default and this is ready to commit.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KONDO Mitsumasa 2013-07-05 07:50:50 Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-07-05 07:22:21 Re: WITH CHECK OPTION for auto-updatable views