> > I was wondering if the multiple writes performed to the 
> > XLOG could be grouped into one write().
> 
> That would require fairly major restructuring of xlog.c, which I don't

Restructing? Why? It's only XLogWrite() who make writes.

> want to undertake at this point in the cycle (we're trying to push out
> a release candidate, remember?).  I'm not convinced it would be a huge
> win anyway.  It would be a win if your average transaction writes
> multiple blocks' worth of XLOG ... but if your average transaction
> writes less than a block then it won't help.

But in multi-user environment multiple transactions may write > 1 block
before commit.

> I think it probably is a good idea to restructure xlog.c so 
> that it can write more than one page at a time --- but it's
> not such a great idea that I want to hold up the release any
> more for it.

Agreed.

Vadim

Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:55:24 -0800
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC 
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> I was wondering if the multiple writes performed to the 
> XLOG could be grouped into one write().
>> 
>> That would require fairly major restructuring of xlog.c, which I don't

> Restructing? Why? It's only XLogWrite() who make writes.

I was thinking of changing the data structure.  I guess you could keep
the data structure the same and make XLogWrite more complicated, though.

>> I think it probably is a good idea to restructure xlog.c so 
>> that it can write more than one page at a time --- but it's
>> not such a great idea that I want to hold up the release any
>> more for it.

> Agreed.

Yes, to-do item for 7.2.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:59:43 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC 