On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> That function *seriously* needs documentation, in particular the fact
> that it's a no-op on machines without the right kernel call. The name
> you've chosen is very bad for those semantics. I'd pick something
> else myself. Maybe "pg_start_dat
Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Barring any objections shall I commit it like this?
Actually before we get there could someone who demonstrated the
speedup verify that this patch still gets that same speedup?
I think the final version of this
Hi Greg,
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:35:59 Greg Stark wrote:
> 2) Why does the second pass to do the fsyncs read through fromdir to
> find all the filenames. I find that odd and counterintuitive. It would
> be much more natural to just loop through the files in the new
> directory. But I suppose
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Barring any objections shall I commit it like this?
Actually before we get there could someone who demonstrated the
speedup verify that this patch still gets that same speedup?
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-perfo
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Looking at this patch for the commitfest I have a few questions.
So I've touched this patch up a bit:
1) moved the posix_fadvise call to a new fd.c function
pg_fsync_start(fd,offset,nbytes) which initiates an fsync without
waiting on it. Curre
Looking at this patch for the commitfest I have a few questions.
1) You said you added an fsync of the new directory -- where is that I
don't see it anywhere.
2) Why does the second pass to do the fsyncs read through fromdir to
find all the filenames. I find that odd and counterintuitive. It woul
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Andres Freund wrote:
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 01:30:17 da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
fsync everything in that pass.
Including the directory - which was not done before and actually m
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
fsync everything in that pass.
Including the directory - which was not done before and actually might be
necessary in some cases.
Er. Yes. At least on ext4 this is pretty important. I wish it weren'
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 01:30:17 da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Greg Stark wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> >> fsync everything in that pass.
> >> Including the directory - which was not done before and actually might
> >> be necessary in some c
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> fsync everything in that pass.
> Including the directory - which was not done before and actually might be
> necessary in some cases.
Er. Yes. At least on ext4 this is pretty important. I wish it weren't,
but it doesn't look like we're goin
10 matches
Mail list logo
