Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would people be interested in a trivial patch that adds O_NOATIME to open() for platforms that support it? (apparently Linux 2.6.8 and better). Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem mount options? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME
Tom Lane wrote: Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would people be interested in a trivial patch that adds O_NOATIME to open() for platforms that support it? (apparently Linux 2.6.8 and better). Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem mount options? Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations you might have some files that want access time, and others that wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a file-by-file bases. That's why I asked. I imagine it won't help on any well-administered production server since they'd probably mount the whole filesystem that way; but might help a bit on out-of-the-box-default-config benchmarks done by naive users who don't tweak filesystem settings. Don't know if we'd care about such an audience or not. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem mount options? Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations you might have some files that want access time, and others that wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a file-by-file bases. Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard the existence of such a flag as a security hole. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME
Tom Lane wrote: Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem mount options? Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations you might have some files that want access time, and others that wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a file-by-file bases. Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard the existence of such a flag as a security hole. I'm not sure I see that. I'd have thought since postgresql already caches stuff in shared buffers, the atime of a postgresql file isn't reliable anyway; and outside of postgresql O_NOATIME doesn't seem to me to affect admins any worse the existence of utime(). OTOH, I'm not going to argue for the patch either. I think it'd be fair to say adding a linuxism and only benefiting novice/casual users isn't that exciting. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
