Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Commitfest patches

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Commitfest patches
Date: 2008-03-28 09:44:42
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:08 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:

> A more invasive form of this patch would be to assign and pin a buffer when
> the preread is done. That would men subsequently we would have a pinned buffer
> ready to go and not need to go back to the buffer manager a second time. We
> would instead just "complete" the i/o by issuing a normal read call.

So if posix_fadvise did nothing or there was a longer than optimal
delay, this would be a net loss.

You'd need reasonable evidence that the posix_fadvise facility was a win
on all platforms and recent release levels before we could agree with

I think we need a more thorough examination of this area before we
commit anything. Maybe you've done this, but I haven't seen the
analysis. Can you say more, please? Or at least say what you don't know,
so other experts listening can fill in the blanks.

  Simon Riggs

  PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference:

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: NikhilSDate: 2008-03-28 10:07:18
Subject: Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-03-28 09:35:03
Subject: Re: pg_standby for 8.2 (with last restart point)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group