[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1316194619-sup-2946@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:39:50 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@...mandprompt.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
robertmhaas <robertmhaas@...il.com>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@...tgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improve lseek scalability v3
Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of vie sep 16 14:27:33 -0300 2011:
> Hi,
> On Friday 16 Sep 2011 17:36:20 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Does the query planner need to know the exact number of bytes in the file,
> > or is it after an order-of-magnitude? Or to-the-nearest-gigabyte?
> It depends on where the information is used. For some of the uses it needs to
> be exact (the assumed size is rechecked after acquiring a lock preventing
> extension) at other places I guess it would be ok if the accuracy got lower
> with bigger files (those files won't ever get bigger than 1GB).
One other thing we're interested in is portability. I mean, even if
Linux were to introduce a new hypothetical syscall that was able to
return the file size at a ridiculously low cost, we probably wouldn't
use it because it'd be Linux-specific. So an improvement of lseek()
seems to be the best option.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@...mandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists