On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> That's going to give worse performance than the current code in some cases.
OK.
>> How does the checkpoint target give you any time to sync them? Unless
>> you squeeze the writes together more tightly, but that seems sketchy.
>
> Obviously the checkpoint target idea needs to be shuffled around some too.
> I was thinking of making the new default 0.8, and having it split the time
> in half for write and sync. That will make the write phase close to the
> speed people are seeing now, at the default of 0.5, while giving some window
> for spread sync too. The exact way to redistribute that around I'm not so
> concerned about yet. When I get to where that's the most uncertain thing
> left I'll benchmark the TPS vs. latency trade-off and see what happens. If
> the rest of the code is good enough but this just needs to be tweaked,
> that's a perfect thing to get beta feedback to finalize.
That seems like a bad idea - don't we routinely recommend that people
crank this up to 0.9? You'd be effectively bounding the upper range
of this setting to a value to the less than the lowest value we
recommend anyone use today.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
