Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

[Bruce Momjian]

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > Based on the tests we did last week, it seems clear than on many
> > platforms it's a win to sync the WAL log by writing it with open()
> > option O_SYNC (or O_DSYNC where available) rather than 
> > issuing explicit fsync() (resp. fdatasync()) calls.
> 
> I don't remember big difference in using fsync or O_SYNC in tfsync
> tests. Both depend on block size and keeping in mind that fsync
> allows us syncing after writing *multiple* blocks I would either
> use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all.

I see what you are saying.  That the OS may be faster at fsync'ing two
blocks in one operation rather than doing to O_SYNC operations.

Seems we should just pick a default and leave the rest for a later
release.  Marc wants RC1 tomorrow, I think.

-- 
  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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly