On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 20:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That was understood; in the above example I agree you need to flush. If > > you don't pass a truncation point, you don't need to flush whether or > > not you actually truncate. So we don't need to flush *every* time, > > OK, but does that actually do much of anything for your performance > complaint? Just after GlobalXmin has passed a truncation point, *every* > vacuum the system does will start performing a flush-n-fsync, which > seems like exactly what you didn't like. If the syncs were spread out > in time for different rels then maybe this idea would help, but AFAICS > they won't be.
Makes sense, so we shouldn't do it that way after all. Are you OK with the other patches I've submitted? My understanding was that you're gonna have a look at those and this general area? I don't want to hold up the release because of a PITR patch. Feedback welcome ;-) -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
