RE: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-16 16:55:24
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3323@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > I was wondering if the multiple writes performed to the
> > XLOG could be grouped into one write().
>
> That would require fairly major restructuring of xlog.c, which I don't

Restructing? Why? It's only XLogWrite() who make writes.

> want to undertake at this point in the cycle (we're trying to push out
> a release candidate, remember?). I'm not convinced it would be a huge
> win anyway. It would be a win if your average transaction writes
> multiple blocks' worth of XLOG ... but if your average transaction
> writes less than a block then it won't help.

But in multi-user environment multiple transactions may write > 1 block
before commit.

> I think it probably is a good idea to restructure xlog.c so
> that it can write more than one page at a time --- but it's
> not such a great idea that I want to hold up the release any
> more for it.

Agreed.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-16 16:59:43 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-16 16:53:01 Re: Performance monitor signal handler