| From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: ["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>] Re: O_DSYNC flag for open | 
| Date: | 2001-03-16 17:03:46 | 
| Message-ID: | m3zoelfxxp.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> forwards:
> >> 2.4's O_SYNC actually does a fdatasync internally.  This is also the
> >> default behaviour of HPUX, which requires you to set a sysctl variable
> >> if you want O_SYNC to flush timestamp changes to disk.
> 
> Well, that guy might know all about Linux, but he doesn't know anything
> about HPUX (at least not any version I've ever run).  O_SYNC is
> distinctly different from O_DSYNC around here.
Y'know, I figured that might be the case.  ;)  He's a well-respected
Linux filesystem hacker, so I trust him on the Linux stuff.  
So are we still thinking about preallocating log files as a
performance hack?  It does seem that using preallocated files along
with O_DATASYNC will eliminate pretty much all metadata writes under
Linux in future...
[NOT suggesting we try to add anything to 7.1, I'm eagerly awaiting RC1]
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-03-16 17:10:34 | Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-16 16:59:43 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |