Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
| От | Alfred Perlstein |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20010315115121.B29888@fw.wintelcom.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> [010315 11:45] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> writes:
> > And since we're sorta on the topic of IO, I noticed that it looks
> > like (at least in 7.0.3) that vacuum and certain other routines
> > read files in reverse order.
>
> Vacuum does that because it's trying to push tuples down from the end
> into free space in earlier blocks. I don't see much way around that
> (nor any good reason to think that it's a critical part of vacuum's
> performance anyway). Where else have you seen such behavior?
Just vacuum, but the source is large, and I'm sort of lacking
on database-foo so I guessed that it may be done elsewhere.
You can optimize this out by implementing the read behind yourselves
sorta like this:
struct sglist *
read(fd, len)
{
if (fd.lastpos - fd.curpos <= THRESHOLD) { fd.curpos = fd.lastpos - THRESHOLD; len = THRESHOLD;}
return (do_read(fd, len));
}
of course this is entirely wrong, but illustrates what
would/could help.
I would fix FreeBSD, but it's sort of a mess and beyond what
I've got time to do ATM.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: