On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Andres Freund escribió:
>> >> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the
>> >> stable branches - other opinions?
>> >> If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
>> > Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of
>> > fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuff.
>> Andres, you want to take a crack at splitting this up?
> I hope I didnt duplicate Gregs work, but I didnt hear back from him, so...
> Everything <8.1 is hopeless because cp is used there... I didnt see it worth
> to replace that. The patch applies cleanly for 8.1 to 8.4 and survives the
> regression tests
> Given pg's heavy commit model I didnt see a point to split the patch for 9.0
> as well...
I'd probably argue for committing this patch to both HEAD and the
back-branches, and doing a second commit with the remaining stuff for
HEAD only, but I don't care very much.
Greg Stark, have you managed to get your access issues sorted out? If
you like, I can do the actual commit on this one.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Connors, Bill||Date: 2010-02-12 16:03:05|
|Subject: Questions on plan with INSERT/SELECT on partitioned table|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-02-12 15:09:41|
|Subject: Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk?|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2010-02-12 15:49:34|
|Subject: Re: review: More frame options in window functions|
|Previous:||From: Boszormenyi Zoltan||Date: 2010-02-12 15:48:32|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs|