<br /><blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left:
5px;">Yeah,it's difficult to believe that multixact stuff could form a<br />noticeable fraction of the total WAL load,
exceptperhaps under really<br />pathological circumstances, because the code just isn't supposed to be<br />exercised
often.So I don't think this is worth pursuing. Paolo's free<br />to try to prove the opposite of course ... but I'd
wantto see numbers<br />not speculation.<br /><br /> regards, tom lane<br /></blockquote>Tom is right, mine are indeed
justplain speculations, motivated by my original doubt concerning whether there were hidden reasons for requiring
multixactsrecoverability.<br />I don't know if I'll find the time to do some performance tests, at least in the short
term,but I've enjoyed to exchange my views with you all, so thanks a lot for your feedback!<br /><br />Just a
curiosity,what kind of benchmarks would you use to evaluate this effect? I am quite familiar with TPC-C and TPC-W, but
iam a newbie of postgresql community so i was wondering if you were using any reference benchmark....<br /><br /><br
/><p>Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! <br />
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
