> Right now the WAL preallocation code (XLogFileInit) is not good enough > because it does lseek to the 16MB position and then writes 1 byte there. > On an implementation that supports holes in files (which is most Unixen) > that doesn't cause physical allocation of the intervening space. We'd > have to actually write zeroes into all 16MB to ensure the space is > allocated ... but that's just a couple more lines of code. Are OS's smart enough to not allocate zero-written blocks? Do we need to write non-zeros? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
- [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_dela... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and com... Nathan Myers
- [HACKERS] Re: Re: WAL and com... Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and com... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and com... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and com... Tom Lane