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>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |
Date: | 2010-12-07 01:59:53 |
Message-ID: | 4CFD9519.6020705@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/06/2010 08:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
>> see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
>> as a seperate option.
> Whether it's complex or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that
> what test_fsync is testing had better match what the backend does, or
> people will be making choices based on not-comparable test results.
> I think we should have test_fsync just automatically fold in O_DIRECT
> the same way the backend does.
>
>
Indeed. We were quite confused for a while when we were dealing with
this about a week ago, and my handwritten test program failed as
expected but test_fsync didn't. Anything other than behaving just as the
backend does violates POLA, in my view.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-07 02:00:24 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-07 01:38:14 | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |