Robert Lor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, those seem plausible, although the hold time for
>> CheckpointStartLock seems awfully high --- about 20 msec
>> per transaction.  Are you using a nonzero commit_delay?
> I didn't change commit_delay which defaults to zero.

Hmmm ... AFAICS this must mean that flushing the WAL data to disk
at transaction commit time takes (most of) 20 msec on your hardware.
Which still seems high --- on most modern disks that'd be at least two
disk revolutions, maybe more.  What's the disk hardware you're testing
on, particularly its RPM spec?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to