Re: Preallocation changes in Postgresql 16
От | Riku Iki |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Preallocation changes in Postgresql 16 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMazQQewmq3Zt+mF1JOTTpJyNyhKQT7C_G7z+MjGxs-xRq0Mxw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Preallocation changes in Postgresql 16 (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Preallocation changes in Postgresql 16
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Thank you, I have such a system. I think my task would be to compile PG from sources(need to learn this), and see how it works with and without that code block.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:25 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:37 AM Riku Iki <riku.iki.x@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if there were preallocation related changes in PG16, and if it is possible to disable preallocation in PostgreSQL 16?
I have no opinion on the btrfs details, but I was wondering if someone
might show up with a system that doesn't like that change. Here is a
magic 8, tuned on "some filesystems":
/*
* If available and useful, use posix_fallocate() (via
* FileFallocate()) to extend the relation. That's often more
* efficient than using write(), as it commonly won't cause the kernel
* to allocate page cache space for the extended pages.
*
* However, we don't use FileFallocate() for small extensions, as it
* defeats delayed allocation on some filesystems. Not clear where
* that decision should be made though? For now just use a cutoff of
* 8, anything between 4 and 8 worked OK in some local testing.
*/
if (numblocks > 8)
I wonder if it wants to be a GUC.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: