On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Monday 08 February 2010 19:34:01 Greg Stark wrote:
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
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 goals and its lack of external
interfaces. There's no catversion
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:02 Andres Freund wrote:
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote:
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
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 platforms and then we could try to put an
API around it.
In linux there
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
right name is, but this doesn't fsync so I don't think it shuld have
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:36:12 Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 19:14:40 Robert Haas wrote:
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
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 20:06:32 Robert Haas wrote:
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
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 name is misleading. We need both a comment and a name change.
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 15:52:25 Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
Looking at this patch for the commitfest I have a few questions.
So I've touched this patch up a bit:
1) moved the posix_fadvise call to a new fd.c function
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
1) moved the posix_fadvise call to a new fd.c function
pg_fsync_start(fd,offset,nbytes) which initiates an fsync without
waiting on it. Currently it's only implemented with
posix_fadvise(DONT_NEED) but I want to look into using sync_file_range
in the future
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 15:57:14 Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
Barring any objections shall I commit it like this?
Actually before we get there could someone who demonstrated the
speedup verify that this patch still gets that same
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 01:27:29 Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
fsync everything in that pass.
Including the directory - which was not done before and actually might be
necessary in some cases.
Er. Yes. At least on ext4
16 matches
Mail list logo
