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: 1206697482.4285.1518.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
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
that.

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
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com 

  PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk


In response to

Responses

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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group