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

Re: Spread checkpoint sync

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Date: 2011-01-18 19:12:53
Message-ID: 4D35E635.7060807@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> 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
HFS+, though.

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-18 19:13:15
Subject: Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-01-18 19:12:22
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups

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