Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1xu-1g6a7Kv3TmNXieA15sP+t0v4UXzFgkL=QsCged7Kg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints.
>> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an
>> impaired kernel cache.
> I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint.
Nonsense. We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information
needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something
intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O
is going on concurrently.
The proposal I was responding to was simply to increase shared_buffers to 80% of RAM *instead of* implementing directIO.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: