Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 07/17/2012 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Furthermore, I would say that any performance testing done since then, >> if it wasn't looking at purely read-only scenarios, isn't worth the >> electrons it's written on. In particular, any performance gain that >> anybody might have attributed to the checkpointer splitup is very >> probably hogwash.
> There hasn't been any performance testing that suggested the > checkpointer splitup was justified. The stuff I did showed it being > flat out negative for a subset of pgbench oriented cases, which didn't > seem real-world enough to disprove it as the right thing to do though. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that this means we should revert the checkpointer split. What I *am* worried about is that we may have been hacking other things on the basis of faulty performance tests. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers