Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
| От | Thomas Lockhart |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3AB22D37.8B46E06C@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Okay ... we can fall back to O_FSYNC if we don't see either of the
> > others. No problem. Any other weird cases out there? I think Andreas
> > might've muttered something about AIX but I'm not sure now.
> You can safely use O_DSYNC on AIX, the only special on AIX is,
> that it does not make a speed difference to O_SYNC. This is imho
> because the jfs only needs one sync write to the jfs journal for meta info
> in eighter case (so that nobody misunderstands: both perform excellent).
Hmm. Does everyone run jfs on AIX, or are there other file systems
available? The same issue should be raised for Linux (at least): have we
tried test cases with both journaling and non-journaling file systems?
Perhaps the flag choice would be markedly different for the different
options?
- Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: