Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In any case, I do want this for VACUUMs to fix the "WAL flush for every > dirty page" problem. Maybe we should indeed drop the other aspects of > the patch and move on, I'm getting tired of this as well.
Can we devise a small patch that fixes that issue without creating uncertain impacts on other behavior? The thing that has made me uncomfortable with this set of patches right along is the presumption that it's a good idea to tweak cache behavior to improve a small set of cases. We are using cache behavior (now clock-sweep, formerly LRU) that is well tested and proven across a large body of experience; my gut feeling is that deviating from that behavior is likely to be a net loss when the big picture is considered. I certainly have not seen any test results that try to prove that there's no such generalized disadvantage to these patches. One could argue that the real bug here is that VACUUM deviates from the standard behavior by forcing immediate recycling of pages it releases, and that getting rid of that wart is the correct answer rather than piling more warts atop it --- especially warts that will change the behavior for anything besides VACUUM. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq