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: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
- 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 14:46:06 +0100
- Message-id: <003e01c51cd2$b037bd40$0a01a8c0(at)zaphod>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
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.
[snip]
Michael Paesold wrote: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?
The patch just implements behaviour that was already documented (forunix) on a new platform (win32). The documentation in general appears >to have very little information on what to pick there, though ;-)
Reading your mails about the pull-the-plug tests, I see that at least with write caching enabled, fsync is more secure on win32 than open_sync. I.e. one should disable write caching for use with open_sync. Also open_sync seems to perform much better. All that information would be nice to have in the docs.
Best Regards,Michael Paesold
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Magnus Hagander
- 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: