> "JJ" == Jeff Janes writes:
JJ> So PG always writing 8K at a time is unlikely to make a difference
JJ> than if it wrote a smaller amount.
Ah.
Somehow I was thinking of the xlog files' 16M filesize rather than the
internal 8k block size
If it is only writing 8k blocks then there is pro
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:15 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "JJ" == Jeff Janes writes:
>
> JJ> Anyway, the writes are logically sequentially, but not physically.
> JJ> If I remember correctly, it always writes out full blocks, even if
> JJ> the last part of the block has not yet been filled with n
> "JJ" == Jeff Janes writes:
JJ> Anyway, the writes are logically sequentially, but not physically.
JJ> If I remember correctly, it always writes out full blocks, even if
JJ> the last part of the block has not yet been filled with new data.
JJ> When the remainder gets filled, it then writes o
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:06 PM, flyusa2010 fly wrote:
> Hi, folks,
> I trace the running postgres, and I found that there are some randoms writes
> in xlog files!
> To my impression, log file writing is always sequential, how come random
> writes happen?
> Thanks in advance!
Just because it does
Hi, folks,
I trace the running postgres, and I found that there are some randoms writes
in xlog files!
To my impression, log file writing is always sequential, how come random
writes happen?
Thanks in advance!
