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 t
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 -- i
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?
Y
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?
rega
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).
It seems to work here, feels harmless to me (an easy ifdef to
check if it's there), and seems it would theoretically help,
though I don't notice a consis
