block
device would do the trick of flushing the disk cache.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Andres Freund"
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: "Dan Scales"
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:43:49 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible new option for wal_sync_method
Hi,
n.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Andres Freund"
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: "Dan Scales"
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:32:09 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible new option for wal_sync_method
Hi,
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 06:18:23 PM Dan Scale
When running Postgres on a single ext3 filesystem on Linux, we find that
the attached simple patch gives significant performance benefit (7-8% in
numbers below). The patch adds a new option for wal_sync_method, which
is "open_direct". With this option, the WAL is always opened with
O_DIRECT (but
gh. I did write the code so that any process
can write a completed batch if the batch is not currently being flushed (so as
to deal with crashes by backends). Having the backends flush the batches as
they fill them up was just simpler for a first prototype.
Dan
- Original Message -----
Fro
f double writes were in use, they might be
automatically switched over to full page writes for the duration of the base
backup. And the double write file should not be part of the base backup.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Fujii Masao"
To: "Dan Scales"
Cc: &qu
the double-write files can be stored on.
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haas"
To: "Dan Scales"
Cc: "PG Hackers"
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 1:48:54 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] double writes using "double-write buffer" app
an
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Haas"
To: "Dan Scales"
Cc: "PG Hackers"
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:19:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] double writes using "double-write buffer" approach [WIP]
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Dan Scales
e checksum calculation
(PageSetVerificationInfo) to mdextend() (or preferably smgrextend()) as well?
Otherwise, you won't be checksumming a bunch of the new pages.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Haas"
To: "Dan Scales"
Cc: "Noah Misch" , "Heikki
Some other comments on the checksum patch:
I'm not sure why you moved the checksum calculation (PageSetVerificationInfo)
to mdwrite() rather than smgrwrite(). If there were every another storage
backend, it would have to duplicate the checksum check, right? Is there a
disadvantage to putting
py to hear all comments/suggestions. Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Scales"
To: "Heikki Linnakangas"
Cc: "PG Hackers" , jks...@gmail.com, "David
Fetter"
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:25:21 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Do
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions on the double-write patch. We are
working on generating performance results for the 9.2 patch, but there is
enough difference between 9.0 and 9.2 that it will take some time.
One thing in 9.2 that may be causing problems with the current patch is the
11 matches
Mail list logo
