From: | Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Windows now has fdatasync() |
Date: | 2021-12-12 06:07:36 |
Message-ID: | CAPvVvKAdG_NT=Tn8UrZt7CRojScR_VqPA3n_mTSp++wTkHZoAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Great. File sync is a Nice extension for me, as I don't know all file
structures.
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am So., 12. Dez. 2021, 03:48:
> Hi,
>
> While porting some new IO code to lots of OSes I noticed in passing
> that there is now a way to do synchronous fdatasync() on Windows.
> This mechanism doesn't have an async variant, which is what I was
> actually looking for (which turns out to doable with bleeding edge
> IoRings, more on that later), but I figured this might be useful
> anyway. I see that at least one other open source database has
> discovered it and seen speedups. Like some other file API
> improvements discussed recently, it's Windows 10+ and NTFS only. I
> tried out a quick POC patch and it runs a bit faster than fsync(), as
> expected. I'm not sure if it's worth bothering with or not given the
> other options, but figured it was worth sharing.
>
> While testing that I also couldn't resist adding an extra output line
> to pg_test_fsync to run open_datasync in buffered I/O mode, like
> PostgreSQL actually does in real life. I guess I should really change
> it to duplicate less code, though...
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1527846213.2475.31.camel%40cybertec.at
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-12 06:24:24 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-12-12 05:14:21 | Re: extended stats on partitioned tables |