Re: shared_buffers advice

> -My warnings about downsides related to checkpoint issues with larger
> buffer pools isn't an opinion at all; that's a fact based on limitations
> in how Postgres does its checkpoints.  If we get something more like
> Oracle's incremental checkpoint logic, this particular concern might go
> away.

Does PG issue checkpoint writes in "sorted" order ?

I wonder about something, too : if your DB size is smaller than RAM, you
could in theory set shared_buffers to a size larger than your DB provided
you still have enough free RAM left for work_mem and OS writes management.
How does this interact with the logic which prevents seq-scans hogging
shared_buffers ?