| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Date: | 2012-06-18 19:55:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1340049327.19023.59.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 21:41 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> It calls pg_flush_data inside of copy_file which does the posix_fadvise... So
> maybe just put the sync_file_range in pg_flush_data?
Oh, I didn't notice that, thank you.
In that case, it may be good to combine them if possible. I will look
into it. There may be performance implications when used one a larger
amount of data though. I can do some brief testing.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-06-18 20:16:05 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-06-18 19:47:07 | [Review] Prevent the specification of conflicting transaction read/write options |