Re: Commitfest patches
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Commitfest patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1206697482.4285.1518.camel@ebony.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Commitfest patches (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Commitfest patches
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:08 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > A more invasive form of this patch would be to assign and pin a buffer when > the preread is done. That would men subsequently we would have a pinned buffer > ready to go and not need to go back to the buffer manager a second time. We > would instead just "complete" the i/o by issuing a normal read call. So if posix_fadvise did nothing or there was a longer than optimal delay, this would be a net loss. You'd need reasonable evidence that the posix_fadvise facility was a win on all platforms and recent release levels before we could agree with that. I think we need a more thorough examination of this area before we commit anything. Maybe you've done this, but I haven't seen the analysis. Can you say more, please? Or at least say what you don't know, so other experts listening can fill in the blanks. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: