On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:07 -0700, Rick Gigger wrote:
> I was thinking the exact same thing. Except the "and just fsync()
> dirty pages on commit" part. Wouldn't that actually make the
> situation worse? I thought the whole point of WAL was that it was
> more efficient to fsync all of the changes in one sequential write in
> one file rather than fsyncing all of the separate dirty pages.
This would apply to only a single relation, so would be just as
efficient a write to the database as to WAL. The proposed route is to
sync to the database, but not to WAL, thus halving the required I/O.
Yes, its designed for large data loads.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
