ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Attached is a revised patch. It became very simple, but I worry that > one magic number (BUFFERS_PER_ABSORB) is still left.
Have you checked that this version of the patch fixes the problem you saw originally? Does the problem come back if you change BUFFERS_PER_ABSORB to too large a value? If you can identify a threshold where the problem reappears in your test case, that would help us choose the right value to use. I suspect it'd probably be sufficient to absorb requests every few times through the fsync loop, too, if you want to experiment with that. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend