* Jeff Janes:
Does the kernel really read a data block from disk into memory in
order to immediately overwrite it? I would have thought it would
optimize that away, at least if the writes are sized and aligned to
512 or 1024 bytes blocks (which WAL should be).
With Linux, you'd have to use
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de wrote:
So given the above, I think it's possible to come up with benchmarks
that prove whatever you want to prove :-)
Yeah. :-(
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree with Merlin and Joachim - if we have the call in one place, we
should have it in both.
We might want to assess whether we even want to
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the kernel really read a data block from disk into memory in
order to immediately overwrite it? I would have thought it would
optimize that away, at least if the writes are sized and aligned to
512 or 1024 bytes
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree with Merlin and Joachim - if we have the call in one place, we
should have it in both.
We might want to assess whether we even want to have it one place.
I've seen cases where the existing call hurts performance,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree with Merlin and Joachim - if we have the call in one place, we
should have it in both.
We might want to assess whether we even want to
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 17.02.2013 14:55, Joachim Wieland wrote:
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0,
On 19 February 2013 20:19, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
If that's the case, why have the advisory call at
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
I agree with Merlin and Joachim - if we have
On 17.02.2013 14:55, Joachim Wieland wrote:
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
before closing the WAL file, but only if we don't have walsenders.
That's
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
before closing the WAL file, but only if we don't have walsenders.
That's reasonable because the walsender will reopen that
11 matches
Mail list logo
