I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
a test run for Ubuntu 11.04:
$ ./test_fsync
2000 operations per
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
a test run for Ubuntu
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
a test
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This should make the program
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests
A.M. wrote:
Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously).
Yes, that would be a serious problem. :-(
I am not sure how
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
why are you slowing down the program by
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
why are you slowing
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
Given that it was unclear whether the first such test
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
Given that it was unclear
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously).
Yes, that would be
A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A.M. wrote:
Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously).
13 matches
Mail list logo
