Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alfred Perlstein
Subject Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date
Msg-id 20010318120328.L29888@fw.wintelcom.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  ("William K. Volkman" <wkv@hiscorp.net>)
Responses Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
* William K. Volkman <wkv@hiscorp.net> [010318 11:56] wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >> 
> > But, with shared libraries, are you really pulling in a "whole
> > thread-support library"?  My understanding of shared libraries (altho it
> > may be totally off) was that instead of pulling in a whole library, you
> > pulled in the bits that you needed, pretty much as you needed them ...
> 
> Just by making a thread call libc changes personality to use thread
> safe routines (I.E. add mutex locking).  Use one thread feature, get
> the whole set...which may not be that bad.

Actually it can be pretty bad.  Locked bus cycles needed for mutex
operations are very, very expensive, not something you want to do
unless you really really need to do it.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl problem (was Re: BeOS Patch)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Beta6 for Tomorrow