| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adding support for posix_fadvise() |
| Date: | 2003-11-03 17:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1067879859.2414.27.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 18:59:
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 11:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Why not? The advice says that you're going to access the data
> > sequentially in the forward direction. If you're not going to back up,
> > there is no point in keeping pages in cache after they've been read.
>
> The advice says: "I'm going to read this data sequentially, going
> forward." It doesn't say: "I'm only going to read the data once, and
> then not access it again" (ISTM that's what FADV_NOREUSE is for).
They seem like independent features.
Can you use combinations like ( FADV_NOREUS | FADV_SEQUENTIAL )
(I obviously have'nt read the spec)
----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-03 17:53:46 | docco on external storage? |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-03 16:59:24 | Re: adding support for posix_fadvise() |