Hi,
On 2023-01-19 22:19:10 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> So I'm a bit unsure about this patch. I doesn't seem like it can perform
> better than read-ahead (although perhaps it does, on a different storage
> system).
I really don't see the point of the patch as-is. It's not going to help OSs
without useful readahead, because those don't have posix_fadvise either. And
hardcoded readahead distance isn't useful - on e.g. cloud storage 128kB won't
be long enough to overcome network latency.
I could see a *tad* more point in using posix_fadvise(fd, 0, 0,
POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL) when opening WAL files, as that'll increase the kernel
readahead window over what's configured.
> With disabled read-ahead it helps (at least a bit), although I'm not
> really convinced there are good reasons to run without read-ahead. The
> reason for doing that was described like this:
Agreed. Postgres currently totally crashes and burns without OS
readhead. Buffered IO without readahead makes no sense. So I just don't see
the point of this patch.
> > Because database should know better than OS which data needs to be
> > prefetched and which should not. Big OS readahead affects index scan
> > performance.
I don't disagree fundamentally. But that doesn't make this patch a useful
starting point.
Greetings,
Andres Freund