On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes: >> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Claudio Freire >> > <klaussfre...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints. >> >> Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an >> >> impaired kernel cache. >> >> > I don't think it would need anything more than a sorted checkpoint. >> >> Nonsense. We don't have access to the physical-disk-layout information >> needed to do reasonable sorting; to say nothing of doing something >> intelligent in a multi-spindle environment, or whenever any other I/O >> is going on concurrently. > > > The proposal I was responding to was simply to increase shared_buffers to > 80% of RAM *instead of* implementing directIO.
If you do not leave a reasonable amount of RAM, writes will be direct and synchronous. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
