On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, any rise in number of XLogFlush() calls should roughly > be accounted for by increased throughput. Am I right in interpreting > it this way?
I think so. There certainly isn't any question that the increased throughput and the increased number of XLogFlush() calls are because of the new group commit behavior. The cost of a WAL write + flush is more effectively amortized, and so XLogFlush() calls becomes cheaper. I'm not prepared to make any predictions as to exactly how they might relate. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
