Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> It's a bug and it's our bug.
No, it's a filesystem bug that this particular filesystem doesn't
support a perfectly reasonable combination of options, and doesn't
even fail gracefully as it could easily do. But assigning blame
doesn't help much.
> Back when we added O_DIRECT, we assumed
> that support for O_DIRECT/opensync could be determined on an OS/kernel
> basis, because that was the information we had. Now it turns out that
> support can vary *by filesystem* and *between remounts*. We didn't have
> any way of knowing different back in 2004, but that doesn't mean we
> don't need to fix our mistaken assumption now.
> Ideally, we would change our code to test support for O_DIRECT on
> startup, rather than at compile time, and backport *that*.
I'm not convinced that a startup-time test would be enough either,
since as you note a remount might be enough to change the situation.
I think the best answer is to get out of the business of using
O_DIRECT by default, especially seeing that available evidence
suggests it might not be a performance win anyway.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-12-01 18:19:40|
|Subject: Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and
data=journalled on ext4|
|Previous:||From: Dmitriy Igrishin||Date: 2010-12-01 18:08:49|
|Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)|