Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7/5/13 2:50 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>
>> So, my simple conclusion is that glibc emulation should be about the
>> same as what we're doing now, so there's no reason to avoid it. That
>> means, if posix_fallocate() is present, we should use it, because it's
>> either the same (if emulated in glibc) or significantly faster (if
>> implemented in the kernel).
>
>
> That's what I'm seeing everywhere too. I'm happy that we've spent enough
> time chasing after potential issues without finding anything now. Pull out
> the GUC that was added for default and this is ready to commit.

Wonderful. Is removing the GUC something that I should do or should
that be done by somebody that knows more about what they are doing? (I
am happy to give it a go!)

Should the small test program that I made also be included somewhere
in the source tree?

--
Jon