Re: win32 performance - fsync question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: win32 performance - fsync question
Date
Msg-id 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A762A@Herge.rcsinc.local
Whole thread Raw
In response to win32 performance - fsync question  ("E.Rodichev" <er@sai.msu.su>)
List pgsql-hackers
> One point that I no longer recall the reasoning behind is that xlog.c
> doesn't think O_SYNC is a preferable default over fsync.  We'd
certainly
> want to hack xlog.c to change its mind about that, at least on
Windows;
> assuming that the FILE_FLAG way is indeed faster.
I also confirmed that the totally un-cached mode in windows
(FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH | FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING) will only work if the
amount of data written is some multiple of 512 bytes.  Can WAL work
under this restriction?

Merlin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: win32 performance - fsync question
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: win32 performance - fsync question