From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A patch for xlog.c |
Date: | 2001-02-24 22:20:06 |
Message-ID: | 15375.983053206@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> writes:
> Forgive me if I posted it to the wrong place -- I was far from
> proposing this for inclusion.
Diffs posted to pgsql-patches are generally considered to be requests
for application of a patch. If this is only an experiment it had best
be clearly labeled as such.
> It is but a small step on the way to my plan of mmap()ifying all of
> the WAL stuff (which may also prove a waste of effort).
Very probably. What are your grounds for thinking that's a good idea?
I can't see any reason to think that mmap is more efficient than write
for simple sequential writes, which is what we need to do.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2001-02-24 23:01:06 | Re: A patch for xlog.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-24 22:07:54 | Re: offset and limit in update and subselect |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2001-02-24 23:01:06 | Re: A patch for xlog.c |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-02-24 21:01:15 | Re: A patch for xlog.c |