Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I don't doubt that there may be a positive effect from increasing the
> block size. But we haven't seen any analysis of why that might be.
It seems at least as likely that increased block size would *decrease*
performance by requiring even small writes to do more physical I/O.
This applies to both data files and xlog.
But the real issue here is whether there are grounds for supporting
run-time changes in the block size. AFAICS the evidence for supporting
even compile-time changes is pretty weak; why should we take the likely
complexity and performance costs of making it run-time changeable?
regards, tom lane
