| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-05-30 12:17:28 |
| Message-ID: | 51A74358.2010501@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/30/13 7:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why? The spec doesn't specify that case and that very well allows other
> behaviour. Glibc sure does behave sensibly and zeroes the data
> (sysdeps/posix/posix_fallocate64.c for the generic implementation) and
> so does linux' fallocate() syscall, but that doesn't say much about
> other implementations.
glibc actually only writes one byte to every file system block, to make
sure the block is allocated. It doesn't actually zero every byte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-05-30 12:19:17 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-30 12:14:27 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |