Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> The whole point of the bgwriter is to give responsetimes a better
>> variance, I never claimed that it will improve performance.
>
> I want to use it to improve reliability, by getting rid of our
> dependence on sync(). The bgwriter can afford to wait for writes
> to occur, so it should be able to use fsync or even O_SYNC.
Agreed, that would be our long term strategy. And chances are that the
63 lines of code I added today for a functionality that is turned off by
default will not completely screw up that plan.
But as I see it, there is not even half of a proposal for all that yet.
And people have response time spike problems caused by the checkpointer
today. At least that is what I heard from the folks who where at our BOF
in New York. Those people will not mind if the option we give them in
7.5 is replaced with something better in 8.0 again. But they mind a lot
if we give them nothing because what we can do now is not optimal.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #