Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4
Date
Msg-id 6263.1291181494@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 11/30/10 7:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> Apparently, testing for O_DIRECT at compile time isn't adequate.  Ideas?
>> 
>> We should wait for the outcome of the discussion about whether to change
>> the default wal_sync_method before worrying about this.

> Are we considering backporting that change?

> If so, this would be another argument in favor of changing the default.

Well, no, actually it's the same (only) argument.  We'd never consider
back-patching such a change if our hand weren't being forced by kernel
changes :-(

As things stand, though, I think the only thing that's really open for
discussion is how wide to make the scope of the default-change: should
we just do it across the board, or try to limit it to some subset of the
platforms where open_datasync is currently the default.  And that's a
decision that ought to be informed by some performance testing.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hitoshi Harada
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - core functionality
Next
From: Shigeru HANADA
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - core functionality