Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
- To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
- Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:47:15 +0100
- Message-id: <054801c51cb9$b53e1780$0a01a8c0(at)zaphod>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Patch applied. Thanks. I assume this is not approprate for 8.0.X. --------------------------------------------------------------- Magnus Hagander wrote:> Magnus prepared a trivial patch which added the O_SYNC flag > for windows and mapped it to FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH in > win32_open.c. Attached is this trivial patch. As Merlin says, it needs some more reliability testing. But the numbers are at least reasonable - it *seems* like it's doing the right thing (as long as you turn off write cache). And it's certainly a significant performance increase - it brings the speed almost up to the same as linux.
The original patch did not have any documentation. Have you added some? Since this has to be configured in GUC (wal_sync_method), the implications should be documented somewhere, no?
Best Regards,Michael Paesold
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Indexes: