Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we had a majority of queries filling more than one block we would > be checkpointing like crazy and we don't normally get reports about > that.
[ raised eyebrow... ] And of course the 30-second-checkpoint-warning stuff is a useless feature that no one ever exercises. But your logic doesn't hold up anyway. People may be doing large transactions without necessarily doing them back-to-back-to-back; there could be idle time in between. For instance, I'd think an average transaction size of 100 blocks would be more than enough to make fsync a winner. There are 2K blocks per WAL segment, so 20 of these would fit in a segment. With the default WAL parameters you could do sixty such transactions per five minutes, or one every five seconds, without even causing more-frequent-than-default checkpoints; and you could do two a second without setting off the checkpoint-warning alarm. The lack of checkpoint complaints doesn't prove that this isn't a common real-world load. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend