Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
KB is ok, MB is not.
It's typical in any data base work. In that case, rename() have no use.
Posted Oct 30, 2009 4:30 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
Databases traditionally use very large files because their implementors have chosen to re-implement filesystem functionality at the low level for performance reasons.
Most often they use their own journalling implementations and fsync(). This is of course legitimate. But using filesystem-level rename to provide atomicity would also be perfectly reasonable.
The size of the renamed and replaced file is an implementation detail only. Rename doesn't impose a requirement to copy large hunks of data only to throw it away. The unit of replacement might be a btree node, for example.
Nothing forces an implementor to use large files for any particular purpose.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds