On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:07 -0700, Rick Gigger wrote: > I was thinking the exact same thing. Except the "and just fsync() > dirty pages on commit" part. Wouldn't that actually make the > situation worse? I thought the whole point of WAL was that it was > more efficient to fsync all of the changes in one sequential write in > one file rather than fsyncing all of the separate dirty pages.
This would apply to only a single relation, so would be just as efficient a write to the database as to WAL. The proposed route is to sync to the database, but not to WAL, thus halving the required I/O. Yes, its designed for large data loads. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
