Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15481.1386725104@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>wrote: >> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints. >> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an >> impaired kernel cache. > I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint. Nonsense. We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O is going on concurrently. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: