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.
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: NikhilS||Date: 2008-03-28 10:07:18|
|Subject: Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-03-28 09:35:03|
|Subject: Re: pg_standby for 8.2 (with last restart point)|