Greg Smith wrote:
> As you can see, I achieved the goal of almost never having a backend
> write its own buffer, so yeah for that. That's the only good thing I
> can say about it though. The TPS results take a moderate dive, and
> there's about 10% more buffer allocations. The big and obvious issues
> is that I'm writing almost 75% more buffers this way--way worse even
> than the 10% extra overhead Heikki was seeing. But since I've going out
> of my way to find a worse-case for this code, I consider mission
> accomplished there.
There's something wrong with that. The number of buffer allocations
shouldn't depend on the bgwriter strategy at all.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com