On 04/29/2015 10:35 AM, k...@rice.edu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:07:04AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 04/29/2015 01:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Which OS and filesystem is this done on? Because many halfway modern
systems, like e.g ext4 and xfs, implement this in the background as
'
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:07:04AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 04/29/2015 01:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >>Which OS and filesystem is this done on? Because many halfway modern
> >>systems, like e.g ext4 and xfs, implement this in the background as
> >>'delayed allocation'.
> >
> >Oh,
On 04/29/2015 01:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Which OS and filesystem is this done on? Because many halfway modern
systems, like e.g ext4 and xfs, implement this in the background as
'delayed allocation'.
Oh, it's in the subject. Stupid me, sorry for that. I'd consider testing
how much better
On 2015-04-29 10:06:39 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-04-23 19:47:06 +, Jan Gunnar Dyrset wrote:
> > I am using PostgreSQL to log data in my application. A number of rows
> > are added periodically, but there are no updates or deletes. There are
> > several applications that log
Hi,
On 2015-04-23 19:47:06 +, Jan Gunnar Dyrset wrote:
> I am using PostgreSQL to log data in my application. A number of rows
> are added periodically, but there are no updates or deletes. There are
> several applications that log to different databases.
>
> This causes terrible disk fragmen
