Fujii Masao wrote:
> According to the result, using sync_file_range instead of fdatasync
> has little effect in the performance of postgres.
When we flush the WAL, we flush everything we've written that far. I'm
not surprised that sync_file_range makes no difference; it does the same
amount of I/O
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 17:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> According to the result, using sync_file_range instead of fdatasync
> has little effect in the performance of postgres.
["...when flushing XLOG"]
Why did you think it would?
AFAICS the range of dirty pages will be restricted to a fairly t
Hi,
Using sync_file_range(2) as wal_sync_method might speed up
the XLOG flush. So, I made the patch to introduce the new valid
value (sync_file_range) to wal_sync_method, and performed the
comparative performance measurement of fdatasync vs
sync_file_range using this patch. The patch is attached t
