On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now, for bigger segment sizes, I think there actually could be a > little bit of a noticeable performance hit here, because it's not just > about total elapsed time. Even if the code eventually touches all of > the memory, it might not touch it all before starting to fire up > workers or whatever else it wants to do with the DSM segment. But I'm > thinking we still need to bite the bullet and pay the expense, because > crash-and-restart cycles are *really* bad.
Here is a new rebased version of this patch, primarily to poke this thread as an unresolved question. This patch is not committable as is though: I discovered that parallel query can cause fallocate to return with errno == EINTR. I haven't yet investigated whether fallocate is supposed to be restartable, or signals should be blocked, or something else is wrong. Another question is whether the call to ftruncate() is actually necessary before the call to fallocate(). Unfounded speculation: fallocate() might actually *improve* performance of DSM segments if your access pattern involves random access (just to pick an example out of the air, something like... building a hash table), since it's surely easier to allocate a big contiguous chunk than a squillion random pages most of which divide an existing hole into two smaller holes... -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers