Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3AB22D37.8B46E06C@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Okay ... we can fall back to O_FSYNC if we don't see either of the > > others. No problem. Any other weird cases out there? I think Andreas > > might've muttered something about AIX but I'm not sure now. > You can safely use O_DSYNC on AIX, the only special on AIX is, > that it does not make a speed difference to O_SYNC. This is imho > because the jfs only needs one sync write to the jfs journal for meta info > in eighter case (so that nobody misunderstands: both perform excellent). Hmm. Does everyone run jfs on AIX, or are there other file systems available? The same issue should be raised for Linux (at least): have we tried test cases with both journaling and non-journaling file systems? Perhaps the flag choice would be markedly different for the different options? - Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: