On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 21:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> But, as I said on my first post on this thread, even such low-frequent
> fsync-WAL-before-buffer-flush might cause a response time spike on the
> primary because the walreceiver must sleep during that fsync. I think
> that leaving the WAL-logging business to another process like walwriter
> is a good idea for reducing further the impact on the walreceiver; In
> typical case,
Agree completely.
> Of course, since this approach is too complicated, it's out of the scope
> of the development for v8.5.
It's out of scope for phase 1, certainly.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com