Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date
Msg-id 20130611165837.GQ7200@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
List pgsql-hackers
* Merlin Moncure (mmoncure@gmail.com) wrote:
> It's understood that posix_fallocate is faster at this -- the question
> on the table is 'does this matter in context of postgres?'.
> Personally I think this patch should go in regardless -- the concerns
> made IMNSHO are specious.

I've not had a chance to look at this patch, but I tend to agree with
Merlin.  My main question is really- would this be useful for extending
*relations*?  Apologies if it's already been discussed; I do plan to go
back and read the threads about this more fully, but I wanted to voice
my support for using posix_fallocate, when available, in general.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: DO ... RETURNING
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: DO ... RETURNING