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

Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4
Date: 2010-12-01 04:17:05
Message-ID: 28907.1291177025@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/30/2010 10:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change
>> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this.

> we've just had a significant PGX customer encounter this with the latest 
> Postgres on Redhat's freshly released flagship product. Presumably the 
> default wal_sync_method will only change prospectively.

I don't think so.  The fact that Linux is changing underneath us is a
compelling reason for back-patching a change here.  Our older branches
still have to be able to run on modern OS versions.  I'm also fairly
unclear on what you think a fix would look like if it's not effectively
a change in the default.

(Hint: this *will* be changing, one way or another, in Red Hat's version
of 8.4, since that's what RH is shipping in RHEL6.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-12-01 04:25:47
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2010-12-01 03:59:46
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] column-level update privs + lock table

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