Re: A patch for xlog.c

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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