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

From Jon Nelson
Subject Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date
Msg-id CAKuK5J0D8pb223Y1tq7VAO-pixadG8NXjf3gpFtMb8QGVgJ4+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>)
Responses Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Jon Nelson escribió:
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > That's true. I originally wrote the patch using fallocate(2). What
>>> > would be appropriate here? Should I switch on the return value and the
>>> > six (6) or so relevant error codes?
>>>
>>> I addressed this, hopefully in a reasonable way.
>>
>> Would it work to just assign the value you got from posix_fallocate (if
>> nonzero) to errno and then use %m in the errmsg() call in ereport()?
>
> That strikes me as a better way. I'll work something up soon.
> Thanks!

Please find attached version 3.
Am I doing this the right way? Should I be posting the full patch each
time, or incremental patches?


--
Jon

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl segfault in plperl_trusted_init() on kfreebsd
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: counting algorithm for incremental matview maintenance