Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> One point about the commit message: fadvise does not block to go into
> the request queue, sync_file_range does. The problem with fadvise is
> that, when the request queue is small, it fills up so fast that most of
> the requests never make it in, and fadvise is essentially a no-op.
> sync_file_range waits for room in the queue, which is (based on my
> tests) enough to improve the scheduling a lot.
I see. I misunderstood your previous message. In that case, it seems
quite likely that it might be helpful if copy_file were to aggregate
the fadvise/sync_file_range calls over larger pieces of the file.
(I'm assuming that the request queue isn't bright enough to aggregate
by itself, though that might be wrong.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
