Re: data on devel code perf dip

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: data on devel code perf dip
Дата
Msg-id 200508120211.j7C2Bgb01740@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org>)
Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Mary Edie Meredith <maryedie@osdl.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> O_DIRECT is only being used for WAL page writes (or I sure hope so
> >> anyway), so shared_buffers should be irrelevant.
> 
> > Uh, O_DIRECT really just enables when open_sync is used, and I assume
> > that is not used for writing dirty buffers during a checkpoint.
> 
> I double-checked that O_DIRECT is really just used for WAL, and only
> when the sync mode is open_sync or open_datasync.  So it seems
> impossible that it affected a run with mode fdatasync.  What seems the
> best theory at the moment is that the grouped-WAL-write part of the
> patch doesn't work so well as we thought.

Yes, that's my only guess.  Let us know if you want the patch to test,
rather than pulling CVS before and after the patch was applied.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: data on devel code perf dip
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?