Hi,
On Friday, October 28, 2011 09:40:51 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The lseek patches just got included in Linus tree.
>
> Excellent, thanks for the update!
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=ef3
> d
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The lseek patches just got included in Linus tree.
Excellent, thanks for the update!
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=ef3d0fd27e90f67e35da516dafc1482c82939a60
So I guess this will be in Linux 3.2?
--
Hi All,
The lseek patches just got included in Linus tree.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Friday 16 Sep 2011 15:19:07 Andrea Suisani wrote:
> hi
>
> On 08/08/2011 07:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> If its ok I will write a mail to lkml referencing this thread and your
> >> numbers inline (with attribution obviously).
> >
> >
hi
On 08/08/2011 07:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
If its ok I will write a mail to lkml referencing this thread and your numbers
inline (with attribution obviously).
That would be great. Please go ahead.
I've just stumbled across this threa
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> If its ok I will write a mail to lkml referencing this thread and your numbers
> inline (with attribution obviously).
That would be great. Please go ahead.
> I don't think it will be that hard to convince them. But I constantly surprise
> m
On Monday, August 08, 2011 13:19:13 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to have been any activity to inlude it in 3.1. The
> > merge window for 3.1 just ended. The next one will open for about a
> > week after the release.
> > Its also n
Robert Haas writes:
> Not really. I do have root access to a 64-core box at the moment, and
> I could probably get permission to reboot it, but if it didn't come
> back on-line that would be awkward.
Red Hat has some test hardware that I can use (... pokes around ...)
Hmm, this one looks promisi
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> There doesn't seem to have been any activity to inlude it in 3.1. The merge
> window for 3.1 just ended. The next one will open for about a week after the
> release.
> Its also not yet included in linux-next which is a "preview" for the curren
On Monday, August 08, 2011 11:33:29 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think its a good idea to replace lseek with fstat in the long
> > run. The likelihood that the lockless generic_file_llseek will get
> > included seems rather high to me. In
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned by the fact that you've only tested this on one
> operating system, and thus the performance characteristics could be
> quite different elsewhere. The comment in mdextend also points out
> a way in which this might not be a wi
On Monday, August 08, 2011 10:30:38 Robert Haas wrote:
> In response to my blog post on lseek contention, someone posted a
> comment wherein they proposed using fstat() rather than lseek() to get
> file sizes.
>
> Thoughts?
I don't think its a good idea to replace lseek with fstat in the long run.
Robert Haas writes:
> In response to my blog post on lseek contention, someone posted a
> comment wherein they proposed using fstat() rather than lseek() to get
> file sizes.
> Patch and test results are attached. Test runs are 5-minute runs with
> scale factor 100 and shared_buffers=8GB.
> Thou
13 matches
Mail list logo
