| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-05-29 14:12:54 |
| Message-ID: | 51A60CE6.9020607@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/28/13 11:36 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Outside of the run for performance testing, I think it would be good at
> this point to validate that there is really a 16MB file full of zeroes
> resulting from these operations. I am not really concerned that
> posix_fallocate might be slower in some cases; that seems unlikely. I
> am concerned that it might result in a file that isn't structurally the
> same as the 16MB of zero writes implementation used now.
I see nothing in the posix_fallocate() man pages that says that the
allocated space is filled with any kind of data or zeroes. It will
likely be garbage data, but that should be fine for a new WAL file.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2013-05-29 14:35:42 | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-29 14:08:30 | Re: GRANT role_name TO role_name ON database_name |