Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Added to TODO:
* Determine optimal fdatasync/fsync, O_SYNC/O_DSYNC options        * Allow multiple blocks to be written to WAL with
onewrite()  
 


> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > It is hard for me to imagine O_* being slower than fsync(),
> 
> Not hard at all --- if we're writing multiple xlog blocks per
> transaction, then O_* constrains the sequence of operations more
> than we really want.  Changing xlog.c to combine writes as much
> as possible would reduce this problem, but not eliminate it.
> 
> Besides, the entire object of this exercise is to work around
> an unexpected inefficiency in some kernels' implementations of
> fsync/fdatasync (viz, scanning over lots of not-dirty buffers).
> Who's to say that there might not be inefficiencies in other
> platforms' implementations of the O_* options?
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 


--  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