Re: [HACKERS] lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 18:41:44
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaTthmnFNqTD_xbGaxSg6jO8oT_VLfyUKpW71dQFC_-oQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jerry Sievers 2018-04-25 18:56:07 Re: Racing DEADLOCK on PostgreSQL 9.3
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-04-25 18:30:50 Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager