| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-09-09 14:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobpgfLuAvpT9BxOjaJDtYgkWgzymqhChm_gXmGcLwXevQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> (3) posix_fadvise on Linux is a bad idea... the good news is that it
>> is not needed there:-) How good or bad an idea it is on other system
>> is an open question...
>
> I don't know what is the best way to verify that, if some body else has
> access to such a m/c, please help to get that verified.
Why wouldn't we just leave it out then? Putting it in when the one
platform we've tried it on shows a regression makes no sense. We
shouldn't include it and then remove it if someone can prove it's bad;
we should only include it in the first place if we have good
benchmarks showing that it is good.
Does anyone have a big Windows box they can try this on?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-09-09 14:52:02 | Re: [GENERAL] Feature Request: bigtsvector |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-09 14:46:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] 答复：[HACKERS] 答复：[HACKERS] about fsync in CLOG buffer write |