Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I would also question the 64KB at a time. Why not a 1024KB (arbitrary)
>> at a time? Is it a resource issue? In the old days when we actually
>> had people trying to run postgresql on 128 and 256 megs of ram, o.k.
>> but now?
> It would be simple enough to change. Try it and see if it actually makes
> a difference. All you have to change is the define of RAW_BUF_SIZE.
Seems unlikely that making it bigger than (a fraction of) L2 cache
would be a smart move.
regards, tom lane
