On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > That's going to give worse performance than the current code in some cases.
OK. >> How does the checkpoint target give you any time to sync them? Unless >> you squeeze the writes together more tightly, but that seems sketchy. > > Obviously the checkpoint target idea needs to be shuffled around some too. > I was thinking of making the new default 0.8, and having it split the time > in half for write and sync. That will make the write phase close to the > speed people are seeing now, at the default of 0.5, while giving some window > for spread sync too. The exact way to redistribute that around I'm not so > concerned about yet. When I get to where that's the most uncertain thing > left I'll benchmark the TPS vs. latency trade-off and see what happens. If > the rest of the code is good enough but this just needs to be tweaked, > that's a perfect thing to get beta feedback to finalize. That seems like a bad idea - don't we routinely recommend that people crank this up to 0.9? You'd be effectively bounding the upper range of this setting to a value to the less than the lowest value we recommend anyone use today. -- 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
