On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> In January of 2011 Robert committed 7f242d880b5b5d9642675517466d31373961cf98 >> to try and compact the fsync queue when clients find it full. There's no >> visible behavior change, just a substantial performance boost possible in >> the rare but extremely bad situations where the background writer stops >> doing fsync absorption. I've been running that in production at multiple >> locations since practically the day it hit this mailing list, with backports >> all the way to 8.3 being common (and straightforward to construct). I've >> never seen a hint of a problem with this new code. > > I've been in favor of back-porting this for a while, so you'll get no > argument from me. > > Anyone disagree?
I recall reviewing that; it seemed like quite a good change. Me likes. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
