Re: checkpointer continuous flushing

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (3) posix_fadvise on Linux is a bad idea... the good news is that it
>>     is not needed there:-) How good or bad an idea it is on other system
>>     is an open question...
>
> I don't know what is the best way to verify that, if some body else has
> access to such a m/c, please help to get that verified.

Why wouldn't we just leave it out then?  Putting it in when the one
platform we've tried it on shows a regression makes no sense.  We
shouldn't include it and then remove it if someone can prove it's bad;
we should only include it in the first place if we have good
benchmarks showing that it is good.

Does anyone have a big Windows box they can try this on?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company