Re: posix_fadvise v22 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: posix_fadvise v22
Date
Msg-id 27519.1231765344@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: posix_fadvise v22  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> 2. I fixed it so that setting effective_io_concurrency to zero disables
>> prefetching altogether; there was no way to do that in the patch as
>> submitted.

> Hm. the original intent was that effective_io_concurrency 1 meant no
> prefetching because there was only one drive.

Well, "no prefetch" is an entirely different behavior from "prefetch one
block ahead".  Given the way you've defined the GUC, a setting of one
has to mean the latter.  My complaint was basically that with the patch
applied, the code was physically incapable of providing the former.
Which you'd surely want if only for testing/comparison purposes.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum and reloptions
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff