Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Basically, I think we need free-behind rather than O_DIRECT.
>
> There are two separate issues here --- one is what's happening in our
> own cache, and one is what's happening in the kernel disk cache.
> Implementing our own free-behind code would help in our own cache but
> does nothing for the kernel cache.
Right.
> My thought on this is that for large seqscans we could think about
> doing reads through a file descriptor that's opened with O_DIRECT.
> But writes should never go through O_DIRECT. In some scenarios this
> would mean having two FDs open for the same relation file. This'd
> require moderately extensive changes to the smgr-related APIs, but
> it doesn't seem totally out of the question. I'd kinda like to see
> some experimental evidence that it's worth doing though. Anyone
> care to make a quick-hack prototype and do some measurements?
True, it is a cost/benefit issue. My assumption was that once we have
free-behind in the PostgreSQL shared buffer cache, the kernel cache
issues would be minimal, but I am willing to be found wrong.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
