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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date
Msg-id 51A74358.2010501@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 5/30/13 7:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why? The spec doesn't specify that case and that very well allows other
> behaviour. Glibc sure does behave sensibly and zeroes the data
> (sysdeps/posix/posix_fallocate64.c for the generic implementation) and
> so does linux' fallocate() syscall, but that doesn't say much about
> other implementations.

glibc actually only writes one byte to every file system block, to make
sure the block is allocated.  It doesn't actually zero every byte.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)