Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On further thought, there is one workload where removing the non-LRU > part would be counterproductive:
> If you have a system with a very bursty transaction rate, it's possible > that when it's time for a checkpoint, there hasn't been any WAL logged > activity since last checkpoint, so we skip it. When that happens, the > buffer cache might still be full of dirty pages, because of hint bit > updates. That still isn't a problem on it's own, but if you then do a > huge batch update, you have to flush those dirty pages at that point. It > would be better to trickle flush those dirty pages during the idle period. But wouldn't the LRU-based scan accomplish that? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match