Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4
Date: 2010-12-01 03:25:22
Message-ID: 4CF5C022.4050302@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/30/2010 10:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Apparently, testing for O_DIRECT at compile time isn't adequate. Ideas?
> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change
> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this.
>
>

Tom,

we've just had a significant PGX customer encounter this with the latest
Postgres on Redhat's freshly released flagship product. Presumably the
default wal_sync_method will only change prospectively. But this will
feel to every user out there who encounters it like a bug in our code,
and it needs attention. It was darn difficult to diagnose, and many
people will just give up in disgust if they encounter it.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hitoshi Harada 2010-12-01 03:30:46 Re: SQL/MED - core functionality
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-12-01 03:13:11 Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4