On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 21:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > But, as I said on my first post on this thread, even such low-frequent > fsync-WAL-before-buffer-flush might cause a response time spike on the > primary because the walreceiver must sleep during that fsync. I think > that leaving the WAL-logging business to another process like walwriter > is a good idea for reducing further the impact on the walreceiver; In > typical case,
Agree completely. > Of course, since this approach is too complicated, it's out of the scope > of the development for v8.5. It's out of scope for phase 1, certainly. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
