From: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL does not recover gracefully from out-of-disk-sp ace |
Date: | 2001-03-08 18:51:38 |
Message-ID: | sivgpkf611.fsf@daffy.airs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> > But we need it regardless --- if you didn't want a fully-allocated WAL
> > file, why'd you bother with the original seek-and-write-1-byte code?
>
> I considered this mostly as hint for OS about how log file should be
> allocated (to decrease fragmentation). Not sure how OSes use such hints
> but seek+write costs nothing.
Doing a seek to a large value and doing a write is not a hint to a
Unix system that you are going to write a large sequential file. If
anything, it's a hint that you are going to write a sparse file. A
Unix kernel will optimize by not allocating blocks you aren't going to
write to.
Ian
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 97: Oh this age! How tasteless and ill-bred it is.
-- Gaius Valerius Catullus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-03-08 19:00:47 | RE: Proposed WAL changes |
Previous Message | Matthew Hagerty | 2001-03-08 18:49:42 | Query not using index, please explain. |