Re: Initdb-time block size specification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Initdb-time block size specification
Date
Msg-id 747c434a-0931-6f41-dd92-281f2d8f07c2@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Initdb-time block size specification  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 01.07.23 00:21, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Right, that's the dance we do to protect against torn pages. But Andres
> suggested that if you have modern storage and configure it correctly,
> writing with 4kB pages would be atomic. So we wouldn't need to do this
> FPI stuff, eliminating pretty significant source of write amplification.

This work in progress for the Linux kernel was also mentioned at PGCon: 
<https://lwn.net/Articles/933015/>.  Subject the various conditions, the 
kernel would then guarantee atomic writes for blocks larger than the 
hardware's native size.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is DATESTYLE, ordering ignored for output but used for input ?
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Creation of an empty table is not fsync'd at checkpoint