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.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: