On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > But even if that doesn't > pan out, I think the fallback position should not be "OK, well, if we > can't get decreased I/O for free then forget it" but rather "OK, if we > can't get decreased I/O for free then let's get decreased I/O in > exchange for increased CPU usage".
While I haven't been following the development of this patch, I will note that on the face of it the latter seem like a trade-off I'd be quite willing to make. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
