Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> More to the point, the utility of the patch remains unproven.
> >> We are not in the habit of adding OS dependencies on speculation.
> 
> > He ran tests, though it is speculation because non-caching is a pretty
> > hard thing to find a benefit from except under low memory situations.
> 
> Well, the tests (a) didn't show any particularly good speedup, and
> (b) were not on the platforms that this is speculated to be useful on
> (ie, those without O_DIRECT).
> 
> I really don't think that an adequate case has been made for adding
> a new OS dependency.

Well, I think the patch should be applied, and the submitter does too,
so unless I hear other votes, it is going in.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to