We did discuss this in Ottawa and I beleive your comment was "the hint
is in the name" referring to posix_fadvise.
In any case both aio and posix_fadvise are specified by posix so I
don't see either as a problem on that front.
I don't think we can ignore any longer that we effectively can't use
raid arrays with postgres. If you have many concurrent queries or
restrict yourself to sequential scans you're ok but if you're doing
data warehousing you're going to be pretty disappointed to see your
shiny raid array performing like a single drive.
greg
On 24 Oct 2008, at 05:42 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Greg Stark
In what way is fadvise a kludge?
non-portable, requires more user-to-system CPU, ... need I go on?
I'd be interested to know which of these proposals you claim *is*
portable. The single biggest reason to reject 'em all is that
they aren't.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
