| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: win32 performance - fsync question |
| Date: | 2005-02-17 19:28:29 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A762A@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> One point that I no longer recall the reasoning behind is that xlog.c
> doesn't think O_SYNC is a preferable default over fsync. We'd
certainly
> want to hack xlog.c to change its mind about that, at least on
Windows;
> assuming that the FILE_FLAG way is indeed faster.
I also confirmed that the totally un-cached mode in windows
(FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH | FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING) will only work if the
amount of data written is some multiple of 512 bytes. Can WAL work
under this restriction?
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-17 19:39:56 | Re: win32 performance - fsync question |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-02-17 19:28:12 | Re: win32 performance - fsync question |