Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I've been working on the patch to enhance our group commit behavior. The
> patch is a dirty hack at the moment, but I'm settled on the algorithm
> I'm going to use and I know the issues involved.
One question that just came to mind is whether Simon's no-commit-wait
patch doesn't fundamentally alter the context of discussion for this.
Aside from the prospect that people won't really care about group commit
if they can just use the periodic-WAL-sync approach, ISTM that one way
to get group commit is to just make everybody wait for the dedicated
WAL writer to write their commit record. With a sufficiently short
delay between write/fsync attempts in the background process, won't
that net out at about the same place as a complicated group-commit
patch?
regards, tom lane