On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > the likelihood of that as you know. >> Hmm, well, I guess. I'm still not sure I really understand what >> benefit we're getting out of this. If we lose a few WAL records for >> an uncommitted transaction, who cares? That transaction is gone >> anyway. > Well, before the simple fix Simon applied after my initial complaint you > didn't get wakeups *at all* in the synchronous_commit=off case. > > Now, with the additional changes, the walsender is woken exactly when data is > available to send and not always when a commit happens. I played around with > various scenarios and it always was a win.
Can you elaborate on that a bit? What scenarios did you play around with, and what does "win" mean in this context? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
