Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1xu-1g6a7Kv3TmNXieA15sP+t0v4UXzFgkL=QsCged7Kg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints.
>> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an
>> impaired kernel cache.

> I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint.

Nonsense.  We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information
needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something
intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O
is going on concurrently.

The proposal I was responding to was simply to increase shared_buffers to 80% of RAM *instead of* implementing directIO. 

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why the buildfarm is all pink