Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think the current plan is to use posix_advise() to allow parallel I/O, > >> rather than async I/O becuase posix_advise() will require fewer code > >> changes. > > > > These are not necessarily mutually exclusive designs. fadvise works fine on > > Linux, but as far as I know only async I/O works on Solaris. Linux also has > > an async I/O library, and it's not clear to me yet whether that might work > > even better than the fadvise approach. > > fadvise is a kludge. While it will help, it still makes us completely > reliant on the OS. For performance reasons, we should be supporting a > multi-block read directly into shared buffers. IIRC, we currently > have support for rings in the buffer pool, which we could read > directly into. Though, an LRU-based buffer manager design would be > more optimal in this case.
True, it is a kludge but if it gives us 95% of the benfit with 10% of the code, it is a win. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers