| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tobias Oberstein <tobias(dot)oberstein(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale .. |
| Date: | 2018-04-25 20:33:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20180425203333.iga6brlp2yhzuhae@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-04-25 14:41:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Andrew Gierth
> <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > The code that detects sequential behavior can not distinguish between
> > pread() and lseek+read, it looks only at the actual offset of the
> > current request compared to the previous one for the same fp.
> >
> > Thomas> +1 for adopting pread()/pwrite() in PG12.
> >
> > ditto
>
> Likewise.
+1 as well. Medium term I forsee usage of at least pwritev(), and
possibly also preadv(). Being able to write out multiple buffers at once
is pretty crucial if we ever want to do direct IO.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-25 20:39:42 | Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-25 20:31:08 | Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data |