Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD...

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD...
Date: 2003-08-29 02:35:47
Message-ID: 20030829023547.GI63737@home.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:00:44PM -0700, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Other than you feeling uneasy about the possibility of uncovering bugs
> because this hasn't been widely done like this before, do you have any
> other concerns, or do you think the possibility of finding bugs very
> likely?

In case Tom didn't make this clear, I'm strongly opposed to making
this change without doing the necessary (non-FreeBSD-specific) legwork.
The bottom-line is that if we're going to be changing the block size
on a regular basis, it needs to be completely transparent to the user,
from a functionality perspective. That's currently not the case:
changing the BLCKSZ changes the meaning of shared_buffers and
effective_cache_size, for example, so tuning documents written for
other operating systems won't apply as easily to PostgreSQL on
FreeBSD. Until the user-visible effects of BLCKSZ have been ironed
over[1], I definately think you shouldn't include the patch in the
FreeBSD port.

[1] - Other improvements, like making it easier to change the
blocksize (making it a configure option?) would be cool too.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2003-08-29 02:48:17 Re: [seanc@FreeBSD.org: Re: Performance tests I did with
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-08-29 02:25:44 Re: Code revision