Re: Initdb-time block size specification

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Initdb-time block size specification
Date: 2023-06-30 22:37:39
Message-ID: ZJ9ZMznPmBZItEot@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:21:03AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 6/30/23 23:53, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > For a 4kB write, to say it is not partially written would be to require
> > the operating system to guarantee that the 4kB write is not split into
> > smaller writes which might each be atomic because smaller atomic writes
> > would not help us.
>
> Right, that's the dance we do to protect against torn pages. But Andres
> suggested that if you have modern storage and configure it correctly,
> writing with 4kB pages would be atomic. So we wouldn't need to do this
> FPI stuff, eliminating pretty significant source of write amplification.

I agree the hardware is atomic for 4k writes, but do we know the OS
always issues 4k writes?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-06-30 22:51:18 Re: Initdb-time block size specification
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2023-06-30 22:36:01 Re: pg_upgrade instructions involving "rsync --size-only" might lead to standby corruption?