On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 07:56:07PM +0200, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
> Thanks, I tried it and it worked. I did not know that changing this
> setting would result in such a performance drop ( I just followed an
It's not a performance drop. It's an on-purpose delay of the
functionality, introduced so that _other_ transactions don't get I/O
starved. ("Make vacuum fast" isn't in most cases an interesting
goal.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
