On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't see this behavior change when turning on wal_debug and
> > looking in the logfiles for 'xlog flush request' messages.
>
> That could have everything to do with the hard
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see this behavior change when turning on wal_debug and
> looking in the logfiles for 'xlog flush request' messages.
That could have everything to do with the hardware you're using. In
general, the higher the cost of an fsync, th
> Are you sure you properly cleared out the stats between profiling sessions?
> Also, XLogFlush gets called by background processes like autovac,
> checkpointer and bgwriter, in addition to being called by committing
> processes. If one profiled session contained a checkpoint and other did
> not,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been trying to understand how group commit implementation works
> the way it does after 9.2 group commit enhancement patch
> (9b38d46d9f5517dab67dda1dd0459683fc9cda9f on REL9_2_STABLE). I admit
> it's a pretty old commit thoug
Hello,
I have been trying to understand how group commit implementation works
the way it does after 9.2 group commit enhancement patch
(9b38d46d9f5517dab67dda1dd0459683fc9cda9f on REL9_2_STABLE). I admit
it's a pretty old commit though I seek some clarification as to how it
provides the performanc
