Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>, "Pgsql-Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching
Date: 2002-10-05 15:28:07
Message-ID: m38z1coqgo.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> writes:

> > The log file would be opened O_DSYNC, O_APPEND every time.
>
> Keep in mind that we support platforms without O_DSYNC. I am not
> sure whether there are any that don't have O_SYNC either, but I am
> fairly sure that we measured O_SYNC to be slower than fsync()s on
> some platforms.

And don't we preallocate WAL files anyway? So O_APPEND would be
irrelevant?

-Doug

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-10-05 15:32:42 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-10-05 15:15:47 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching