Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It may have been much earler in the debate, but has anyone checked to see > what the maximum possible gains might be - or is it self-evident to people > who know the code? fsync off provides an upper bound to the speed achievable from being smarter about when to fsync... I doubt that fsync-once-per-checkpoint would be much different. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performa... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improveme... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance impro... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improveme... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] CommitDelay performance improvement Philip Warner