Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200103152030.PAA16012@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > Based on the tests we did last week, it seems clear than on many > > platforms it's a win to sync the WAL log by writing it with open() > > option O_SYNC (or O_DSYNC where available) rather than > > issuing explicit fsync() (resp. fdatasync()) calls. > > I don't remember big difference in using fsync or O_SYNC in tfsync > tests. Both depend on block size and keeping in mind that fsync > allows us syncing after writing *multiple* blocks I would either > use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all. I see what you are saying. That the OS may be faster at fsync'ing two blocks in one operation rather than doing to O_SYNC operations. Seems we should just pick a default and leave the rest for a later release. Marc wants RC1 tomorrow, I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: