Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes?
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220929172711.GA71469@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:32:32AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:54 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> + PGAlignedXLogBlock zbuffer; >> + >> + memset(zbuffer.data, 0, XLOG_BLCKSZ); >> >> This seems excessive for only writing a single byte. > > Yes, I removed it now, instead doing pg_pwrite(fd, "\0", 1, > wal_segment_size - 1). I don't think removing the use of PGAlignedXLogBlock here introduces any sort of alignment risk, so this should be alright. +#ifdef WIN32 + /* + * WriteFile() on Windows changes the current file position, hence we + * need an explicit lseek() here. See pg_pwrite() implementation in + * win32pwrite.c for more details. + */ Should we really surround this with a WIN32 check, or should we just unconditionally lseek() here? I understand that this helps avoid an extra system call on many platforms, but in theory another platform introduced in the future could have the same problem, and this seems like something that could easily be missed. Presumably we could do something fancier to indicate pg_pwrite()'s behavior in this regard, but I don't know if that sort of complexity is really worth it in order to save an lseek(). + iov[0].iov_base = zbuffer.data; This seems superfluous, but I don't think it's hurting anything. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: