X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05919FB205 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:31:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61834-08 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:31:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C9F9FB203 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:31:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 3313130F5C; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:31:49 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ron Mayer X-Newsgroups: pgsql.hackers Subject: Re: O_NOATIME Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:31:50 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 24 Message-ID: <44D26B46.9090005@cheapcomplexdevices.com> References: <25468.1154637504@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44D2620C.3070506@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <26312.1154639188@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org To: Tom Lane User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060713) In-Reply-To: <26312.1154639188@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/167 X-Sequence-Number: 87660 Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem >>> mount options? > >> Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations >> you might have some files that want access time, and others that >> wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a >> file-by-file bases. > > Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard > the existence of such a flag as a security hole. I'm not sure I see that. I'd have thought since postgresql already caches stuff in shared buffers, the atime of a postgresql file isn't reliable anyway; and outside of postgresql O_NOATIME doesn't seem to me to affect admins any worse the existence of utime(). OTOH, I'm not going to argue for the patch either. I think it'd be fair to say adding a linuxism and only benefiting novice/casual users isn't that exciting.