On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of
fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuff.
Sorry, I'm just catching up on my mail from
Robert Haas wrote:
Well it seems that what we're trying to implement is more like
it_would_be_nice_if_you_would_start_syncing_this_file_range_but_its_ok_if_you_dont(),
so maybe that would work.
Anyway, is there something that we can agree on and get committed here
for 9.0, or should we postpone
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
This is turning into yet another one of those situations where something
simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize it way more
than it needs to be, given its current
Andres Freund escribió:
I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the stable
branches - other opinions?
If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of
fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuff.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the stable
branches - other opinions?
If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
Yeah, it seems there are two patches here
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday 06 February 2010 06:03:30 Greg Smith wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 02/03/10 14:42, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, maybe we should start with a discussion of what kernel calls
you're aware of on different
Andres Freund wrote:
On 02/03/10 14:42, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, maybe we should start with a discussion of what kernel calls
you're aware of on different platforms and then we could try to put an
API around it.
In linux there is sync_file_range. On newer Posixish systems one can
emulate that
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're probably right, but it's not clear what the new name
should be until we have a comment explaining what the function is
responsible for.
So I wrote some comments but wasn't going to repost the patch with the
On 02/03/10 12:53, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're probably right, but it's not clear what the new name
should be until we have a comment explaining what the function is
responsible for.
So I wrote some comments but
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're probably right, but it's not clear what the new name
should be until we have a comment explaining what the function is
responsible for.
So
On 02/03/10 14:42, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're probably right, but it's not clear what the new name
should be until we have a comment explaining what
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That function *seriously* needs documentation, in particular the fact
that it's a no-op on machines without the right kernel call. The name
you've chosen is
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:36:12 Robert Haas wrote:
I took a look at this patch today and I agree with Tom that
pg_fsync_start() is a very confusing name. I don't know what the
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
For now it could - but it very well might be converted to sync_file_range or
similar, which would have different sideeffects.
As the potential code duplication is rather small I would prefer to describe
the prime effect
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Hmm, in that case, I think the problem is that this function has no
comment explaining its intended charter.
That's certainly a big problem, but a comment won't fix the fact that
the
Greg Stark wrote:
Actually before we get there could someone who demonstrated the
speedup verify that this patch still gets that same speedup?
Let's step back a second and get to the bottom of why some people are
seeing this and others aren't. The original report here suggested this
was
16 matches
Mail list logo
