Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Date
Msg-id 1117436681.23266.41.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
List pgsql-patches
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 02:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Some googling suggests so, eg
> http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man2/open.2.html

Well, that claims that "data is guaranteed to have been transferred",
but transferred to *where* is the question :) Transferring data to the
disk's buffers and then not asking for the buffer to be flushed is not
sufficient, for example. IMHO the fact that InnoDB uses both O_DIRECT
and fsync() is more convincing. I'm still looking for a definitive
answer, though.

The other question is whether these semantics are identical among the
various O_DIRECT implementations (e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, IRIX, and
others).

-Neil



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: SQLSTATE again