Re: fdatasync performance problem with large number of DB files

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Brown <michael(dot)brown(at)discourse(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fdatasync performance problem with large number of DB files
Date: 2021-03-21 07:55:02
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPoKR9i+xpNJMrjOFuKdT3ususw8n6HwKjRx0JTEQQRmg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> So this means that in less-than-bleeding-edge kernels, syncfs can
> only be regarded as a dangerous toy. If we expose an option to use
> it, there had better be large blinking warnings in the docs.

Isn't that true for fsync and everything else related on
less-than-bleeding-edge kernels anyways?

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2021-03-21 08:24:15 Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-03-21 07:39:48 Re: Logical Replication vs. 2PC