Re: WAL does not recover gracefully from out-of-disk-sp ace - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ian Lance Taylor
Subject Re: WAL does not recover gracefully from out-of-disk-sp ace
Date
Msg-id sivgpkf611.fsf@daffy.airs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: WAL does not recover gracefully from out-of-disk-sp ace  ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:

> > But we need it regardless --- if you didn't want a fully-allocated WAL
> > file, why'd you bother with the original seek-and-write-1-byte code?
> 
> I considered this mostly as hint for OS about how log file should be
> allocated (to decrease fragmentation). Not sure how OSes use such hints
> but seek+write costs nothing.

Doing a seek to a large value and doing a write is not a hint to a
Unix system that you are going to write a large sequential file.  If
anything, it's a hint that you are going to write a sparse file.  A
Unix kernel will optimize by not allocating blocks you aren't going to
write to.

Ian

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 97: Oh this age!  How tasteless and ill-bred it is.    -- Gaius Valerius Catullus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Richard J Kuhns
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance monitor
Next
From: Matthew Hagerty
Date:
Subject: Query not using index, please explain.