On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I wonder if mmap() && msync(MS_ASYNC) isn't a better replacement for
> sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) than posix_fadvise(DONTNEED). It
> might even be possible to later approximate that on windows using
I think this idea is worth exploring especially because we can have
Windows equivalent for this optimisation. Will this option by any
chance can lead to increase in memory usage as mmap has to
map the file/'s?