Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?
Date: 2009-06-19 15:51:01
Message-ID: 4A3BB3E5.6000001@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Just eyeing the code ... another thing we changed since 8.3 is to enable
> posix_fadvise() calls for WAL. Any of the complaints want to try diking
> out this bit of code (near line 2580 in src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c)?
>
> #if defined(USE_POSIX_FADVISE) && defined(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)
> if (!XLogArchivingActive() &&
> (get_sync_bit(sync_method) & PG_O_DIRECT) == 0)
> (void) posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
> #endif

doesn't seem to cause any noticable difference for me...

Stefan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-06-19 16:03:13 Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-06-19 15:40:16 Re: rc1 tarball contains partially outdated/missing man pages