Hi
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Recently I've been dismissing a lot of suggested changes to checkpoint > fsync timing without suggesting an alternative. I have a simple one in > mind that captures the biggest problem I see: that the number of backend > and checkpoint writes to a file are not connected at all. > > We know that a 1GB relation segment can take a really long time to write > out. That could include up to 128 changed 8K pages, and we allow all of > them to get dirty before any are forced to disk with fsync. > > It was surely already discussed but why isn't postresql writing sequentially its cache in a temporary file? With storage random speed at least five to ten time slower it could help a lot. Thanks Didier
