Re: [HACKERS] Improve lseek scalability v3

[Alvaro Herrera]

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.

-- 
Ãlvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/