On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Your two paragraphs have roughly opposite arguments... > > Doing it every 32 pages would give you 30 seconds to complete the > fsync, if you kicked it off when half way through the previous file - > at current maximum rates. So there is utility in doing it in larger > chunks.
Maybe, but I'd like to try changing one thing at a time. If we change too much at once, it's likely to be hard to figure out where the improvement is coming from. Moving the task to a background process is one improvement; doing it in larger chunks is another. Those deserve independent testing. > If it is too slow, we would just wait for sync like we do now. > > I think we need another background process since we have both cleaning > and pre-allocating tasks to perform. Possibly. I have some fear of ending up with too many background processes, but we may need them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
