| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.4 regression |
| Date: | 2013-09-04 15:15:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20130904151537.GF2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> I'd vote for adding zeroing *after* the fallocate() first. That's what's
> suggested by kernel hackers and what several other large applications
> do. As it looks like it's what we would have to do if we ever get to use
> fallocate for relation extension where we would have actual benefits
> from it.
Does that actually end up doing anything different from what we were
doing pre-patch here? At best, it *might* end up using a larger extent,
but unless we can actually be confident that it does, I'm not convinced
the additional complexity is worth it and would rather see this simply
reverted.
One might ask why the kernel guys aren't doing this themselves or
figuring out why it's necessary to make it worthwhile.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-09-04 15:21:14 | Re: [v9.4] row level security |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-04 15:12:17 | Re: getting rid of maintainer-check |