Re: initdb and fsync
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 28922.1342222994@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: initdb and fsync (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> One point about the commit message: fadvise does not block to go into
> the request queue, sync_file_range does. The problem with fadvise is
> that, when the request queue is small, it fills up so fast that most of
> the requests never make it in, and fadvise is essentially a no-op.
> sync_file_range waits for room in the queue, which is (based on my
> tests) enough to improve the scheduling a lot.
I see. I misunderstood your previous message. In that case, it seems
quite likely that it might be helpful if copy_file were to aggregate
the fadvise/sync_file_range calls over larger pieces of the file.
(I'm assuming that the request queue isn't bright enough to aggregate
by itself, though that might be wrong.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: