On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 5 September 2013 22:24, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:27:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >>> > I vote for adapting the patch to additionally zero out the file via >>> > write(). In your tests that seemed to perform at least as good as the >>> > old method... It also has the advantage that we can use it a littlebit >>> > more as a testbed for possibly using it for heap extensions one day. >>> > We're pretty early in the cycle, so I am not worried about this too >>> > much... >>> >>> I dunno, I'm pretty disappointed that this doesn't actually improve >>> things. Just following this casually, it looks like it might be some >>> kind of locking issue in the kernel that's causing it to be slower; or >>> at least some code path that isn't exercise terribly much and therefore >>> hasn't been given the love that it should. >>> >>> Definitely interested in what Ts'o says, but if we can't figure out why >>> it's slower *without* writing out the zeros, I'd say we punt on this >>> until Linux and the other OS folks improve the situation. >> >> FYI, the patch has been reverted. > > Is there an updated patch available for this? And did anyone hear from Ts'o?
After the patch was reverted, it was not re-submitted. I have tried 3 or 4 times to get more info out of Ts'o , without luck. -- Jon -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers