| From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
| Date: | 2005-06-23 18:18:54 |
| Message-ID: | m24qbpc4xd.fsf@Douglas-McNaughts-Powerbook.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> Would testing in the WAL directory be sufficient? Or at least better
> than nothing? Of course we could test in the database directories as
> well, but you never know if stuff's been symlinked elsewhere... err, we
> can test for that, no?
>
> In any case, it seems like it'd be good to try to test and throw a
> warning if the drive appears to be caching or if we think the test might
> not cover everything (ie symlinks in the data directory).
I think it would make more sense to write the test as a separate
utility program--then the sysadmin can check the disks he cares
about. I don't personally see the need to burden the backend with
this.
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-23 18:21:41 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-23 18:08:22 | Re: regression failure |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-23 18:21:41 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-06-23 18:06:53 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |