Re: fsync vs open_sync (more info) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Subject Re: fsync vs open_sync (more info)
Date
Msg-id 11115.64.119.142.34.1092151370.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to fsync vs open_sync  (pgsql@mohawksoft.com)
Responses Re: fsync vs open_sync (more info)
List pgsql-hackers
>
> In particular, you need to offer some evidence for that completely
> undocumented assertion that "it won't hurt anyone else".

It should be easy enough to prove whether or not O_SYNC hurts anyone.

OK, let me ask a few questions:

(1) what is a good sample set on which to run? Linux, FreeBSD, MacIntosh?
(2) What sort of tests would be definitive? Auto commit and some
transactional load?


After delving into this a little, it seems to me that if you are going to
do this:

write(file, buffer, size);
f[data]sync(file);

Opening with O_SYNC seems to be an optimization specifically to this
methodology. At the very least, it will save one user/kernel transition.
If we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that using O_SYNC does not hurt
any platform, then what reason would there be to continue making it the
default?

Again, conceptually, O_SYNC does what you want it to do, and should be
able to do it more efficiently than fdatasync().


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Add Missing From?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Add Missing From?