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

Re: A patch for xlog.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Date: 2001-02-24 22:20:06
Message-ID: 15375.983053206@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> writes:
> Forgive me if I posted it to the wrong place -- I was far from
> proposing this for inclusion.

Diffs posted to pgsql-patches are generally considered to be requests
for application of a patch.  If this is only an experiment it had best
be clearly labeled as such.

> It is but a small step on the way to my plan of mmap()ifying all of
> the WAL stuff (which may also prove a waste of effort).

Very probably.  What are your grounds for thinking that's a good idea?
I can't see any reason to think that mmap is more efficient than write
for simple sequential writes, which is what we need to do.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Matthew KirkwoodDate: 2001-02-24 23:01:06
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-24 22:07:54
Subject: Re: offset and limit in update and subselect

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Matthew KirkwoodDate: 2001-02-24 23:01:06
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-24 21:01:15
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group