> To be frank, I really don't care about fixing this behavior on ext3,
> especially in the context of that sort of hack. That filesystem is not
> the future, it's not possible to ever really make it work right, and
> every minute spent on pandering to its limitations would be better spent
> elsewhere IMHO. I'm starting with the ext3 benchmarks just to provide
> some proper context for the worst-case behavior people can see right
> now, and to make sure refactoring here doesn't make things worse on it.
> My target is same or slightly better on ext3, much better on XFS and ext4.
Please don't forget that we need to avoid performance regressions on
NTFS and ZFS as well. They don't need to improve, but we can't let them
regress. I think we can ignore BSD/UFS and Solaris/UFS, as well as
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-18 19:13:15|
|Subject: Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-01-18 19:12:22|
|Subject: Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups|