Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 25727.984948723@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> writes:
>> Just by making a thread call libc changes personality to use thread
>> safe routines (I.E. add mutex locking). Use one thread feature, get
>> the whole set...which may not be that bad.
> Actually it can be pretty bad. Locked bus cycles needed for mutex
> operations are very, very expensive, not something you want to do
> unless you really really need to do it.
It'd be interesting to try to get some numbers about the actual cost
of using a thread-aware libc, on platforms where there's a difference.
Shouldn't be that hard to build a postgres executable with the proper
library and run some benchmarks ... anyone care to try?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: