| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ang Chin Han <angch(at)bytecraft(dot)com(dot)my>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM |
| Date: | 2003-11-10 19:10:15 |
| Message-ID: | 87llqoyr8o.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Another idea --- if fsync() is slow because it can't find the dirty
> buffers, use write() to write the buffers, copy the buffer to local
> memory, mark it as clean, then open the file with O_SYNC and write
> it again.
Yuck.
Do we have any idea how many kernels are out there that implement
fsync() as poorly as HPUX apparently does? I'm just wondering if we're
contemplating spending a whole lot of effort to work around a bug that
is only present on an (old?) version of HPUX. Do typical BSD derived
kernels exhibit this behavior? What about Linux? Solaris?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-10 19:20:07 | Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-11-10 19:09:23 | Re: What do you want me to do? |