Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> This suggestion has showed up more than once in the past, and WAL
> insertion is a path that can become so hot under some workloads that
> changing it to a GUC would not be wise from the point of view of
> performance. Redesigning all that to not require a set of LWLocks
> into something more scalable would lead to better result, whatever
> this design may be.
Maybe. I bet just bumping up the constant by 2X or 4X or so would get
most of the win for far less work; it's not like adding a few more
LWLocks is expensive. But we need some evidence about what to set it to.
regards, tom lane
