On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:16:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thinking about this whole idea a bit more, it occured to me that the > > current approach to write all, then fsync all is really a historical > > artifact of the fact that we used to use the system-wide sync call > > instead of fsyncs to flush the pages to disk. That might not be the best > > way to do things in the new load-distributed-checkpoint world. > > > How about interleaving the writes with the fsyncs? > > I don't think it's a historical artifact at all: it's a valid reflection > of the fact that we don't know enough about disk layout to do low-level > I/O scheduling. Issuing more fsyncs than necessary will do little > except guarantee a less-than-optimal scheduling of the writes.
If we extended relations by more than 8k at a time, we would know a lot more about disk layout, at least on filesystems with a decent amount of free space. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
pgpD131BxuJOC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
