Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 1 June 2012 14:59, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Ah. Well, as long as the overflowed fsyncs do get handled on the
>> requesting side, I see no bug here. No objection to changing the order
>> in which we launch the processes, but as Heikki says, it's not clear
>> that that is really going to make much difference.
> If I see those messages again, I guess you'll be right.
> If that happens I suggest just adding a short wait at bgwriter startup.
Why? Surely we are not that concerned about performance during the
startup transient. Also, it is very easy to imagine that adding a delay
would make startup performance worse not better anyway.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
