On 2016-05-12 11:27:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Could you run this one with a number of different backend_flush_after
> > settings?  I'm suspsecting the primary issue is that the default is too low.
> What values do you think would be good to test?  Maybe provide 3 or 4
> suggested values to try?

0 (disabled), 16 (current default), 32, 64, 128, 256?

I'm suspecting that only backend_flush_after_* has these negative
performance implications at this point.  One path is to increase that
option's default value, another is to disable only backend guided
flushing. And add a strong hint that if you care about predictable
throughput you might want to enable it.


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to