On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > As for "copious technical evidence", I saw no evidence provided > whatsoever that this patch really did anything much to fix the > reported problem. Yeah, it would help during the initial scan > of the old rel, but not during the sort or reindex steps. >
Well if Simon's right that it's a question of generating an overwhelming amount of wal rather than saturating the local i/o then the sort isn't relevant. I'm not sure of what the scale of wal from the reindex operation is compared to the table rebuild. Of course you would have same problem doing a COPY load or even just doing a sequential scan of a recently loaded table. Or is there something about table rebuilds that is particularly nasty? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
