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

[Bruce Momjian]

Added to TODO:

        * Determine optimal fdatasync/fsync, O_SYNC/O_DSYNC options
                * Allow multiple blocks to be written to WAL with one write()  


> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is hard for me to imagine O_* being slower than fsync(),
> 
> Not hard at all --- if we're writing multiple xlog blocks per
> transaction, then O_* constrains the sequence of operations more
> than we really want.  Changing xlog.c to combine writes as much
> as possible would reduce this problem, but not eliminate it.
> 
> Besides, the entire object of this exercise is to work around
> an unexpected inefficiency in some kernels' implementations of
> fsync/fdatasync (viz, scanning over lots of not-dirty buffers).
> Who's to say that there might not be inefficiencies in other
> platforms' implementations of the O_* options?
> 
>                       regards, tom lane
> 


-- 
  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 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]