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

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date
Msg-id 51D67468.1080705@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/5/13 2:50 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> So, my simple conclusion is that glibc emulation should be about the
> same as what we're doing now, so there's no reason to avoid it. That
> means, if posix_fallocate() is present, we should use it, because it's
> either the same (if emulated in glibc) or significantly faster (if
> implemented in the kernel).

That's what I'm seeing everywhere too.  I'm happy that we've spent 
enough time chasing after potential issues without finding anything now.  Pull out the GUC that was added for default
andthis is ready to commit.
 

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: WITH CHECK OPTION for auto-updatable views
Next
From: KONDO Mitsumasa
Date:
Subject: Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses