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
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 |