Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Date
Msg-id 15481.1386725104@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
List pgsql-hackers
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints.
>> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an
>> impaired kernel cache.

> I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint.

Nonsense.  We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information
needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something
intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O
is going on concurrently.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Claudio Freire
Date:
Subject: Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Next
From: "Sergey E. Koposov"
Date:
Subject: Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good