| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
| Date: | 2022-09-26 21:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20220926215531.GA1342693@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:37:38AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I don't think so, that's an extra kernel call. I think I'll just have
> to revert part of my recent change that removed the pg_ prefix from
> those function names in our code, and restore the comment that warns
> you about the portability hazard (I thought it went away with HP-UX
> 10, where we were literally calling lseek() before every write()).
> The majority of users of these functions don't intermix them with
> calls to read()/write(), so they don't care about the file position,
> so I think it's just something we'll have to continue to be mindful of
> in the places that do.
Ah, you're right, it's probably best to avoid the extra system call for the
majority of callers that don't care about the file position. I retract my
previous message.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-26 21:59:04 | Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-26 21:45:57 | Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes |