Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22
Date: 2009-01-10 19:07:06
Message-ID: 603c8f070901101107m3321d2acu439cea602d6c7a1c@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I think at a minimum there should be a manual configuration switch
> (ie something in pg_config_manual.h) to allow the builder to disable
> use of posix_fadvise, even if configure thinks it's there. Depending
> on buildfarm results we may have to do more than that.

This seems pretty pointless, since there is already a GUC to control
the behavior, and the default is off. The only value here would be if
you could demonstrate that even with effective_io_concurrency set to 1
there is a significant performance dropoff. But that would probably
be an argument for rejecting the patch outright, not adding a
compile-time switch.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-01-10 19:07:18 Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-10 19:05:36 Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22