Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
Cc: Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large
Date: 2002-10-06 16:46:14
Message-ID: 10986.1033922774@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> writes:
> I personally would at least like to see an aio implementation and would
> be willing to even help benchmark it to benchmark/validate any returns
> in performance. Surely if testing reflected a performance boost it
> would be considered for baseline inclusion?

It'd be considered, but whether it'd be accepted would have to depend
on the size of the performance boost, its portability (how many
platforms/scenarios do you actually get a boost for), and the extent of
bloat/uglification of the code.

I can't personally get excited about something that only helps if your
server is starved for RAM --- who runs servers that aren't fat on RAM
anymore? But give it a shot if you like. Perhaps your analysis is
pessimistic.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-10-06 20:04:55 Re: New lock types
Previous Message Greg Copeland 2002-10-06 16:06:38 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large