> > FSYNC:        257tps
> > O_DSYNC:      333tps   
> > 
> > Just(?) 30% faster, -:(
> 
> First of all, if you ask me, that is one hell of an improvement :-)

Of course -:) But tfsync tests were more promising -:)
Probably we should update XLogWrite to write() more than 1 block,
but Tom should apply his patches first (btw, did you implement
"log file size" condition for checkpoints, Tom?).

Vadim

Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:02:49 -0800
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou
	t-of -dis k-sp ace
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> Probably we should update XLogWrite to write() more than 1 block,
> but Tom should apply his patches first (btw, did you implement
> "log file size" condition for checkpoints, Tom?).

Yes I did.  There's a variable now to specify a checkpoint every N
log segments --- I figured that was good enough resolution, and it
allowed the test to be made only when we're rolling over to a new
segment, so it's not in a time-critical path.

If you're happy with what I did so far, I'll go ahead and commit.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:15:32 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis
	k-sp ace