| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, stefan(at)drees(dot)name, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Date: | 2013-06-12 16:36:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoadBa41kFx_J=PPg_k_yCB=cVbkF7QVupN-j8O6j+aUDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> It's understood that posix_fallocate is faster at this -- the question
>> on the table is 'does this matter in context of postgres?'.
>> Personally I think this patch should go in regardless -- the concerns
>> made IMNSHO are specious.
>
> I've not had a chance to look at this patch, but I tend to agree with
> Merlin.
I also think this is a good idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-12 16:39:53 | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-12 16:31:31 | Re: Server side lo-funcs name |