Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes?
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGK-FM0kpvAss+2s6=Fyj+w7d1LLB1mN6713v59uLjFE4w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:30 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:54:00PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > I ran some tests on my dev system [1] and I don't see much difference > > between v3 and v4. So, +1 for v3 patch (+ argument order swap) from > > Andres to keep the code simple and elegant. > > This thread has stalled for a couple of weeks, so I have gone back to > it. Testing on a tmpfs I am not seeing a difference if performance > for any of the approaches discussed. At the end, as I am the one > behind the introduction of pg_pwrite_zeros(), I have applied v3 after > switches the size and offset parameters to be the same way as in v4. Apparently ye olde GCC 4.7 on "lapwing" doesn't like the way you initialised that struct. I guess it wants {{0}} instead of {0}. Apparently old GCC was wrong about that warning[1], but that system doesn't have the back-patched fixes? Not sure. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63355760/how-standard-is-the-0-initializer-in-c89
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: