On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:35:18AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 05:21:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> > > If we have it, we should improve it, or remove it. We might want to use >> > > this code for something else in the future, so it should be improved >> > > where feasible. >> > >> > Meh. We don't put in effort into code that doesn't matter just because >> > it might get used elsewhere some day. By that argument we'd need to >> > performance optimize a lot of code. And actually, using that code >> > somewhere else is more of a counter indication than a pro >> > argument. MAP_NOSYNC isn't a general purpose flag. >> >> The key is that this is platform-specific behavior, so if we should use >> a flag to use it right, we should. You are right that optimizing >> rarely used code with generic calls isn't a good use of time. > > I have adjusted Sean's mmap() options patch to match our C layout and > plan to apply this to head, as it is from August.
Looks great, thanks for taking care of that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
