On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, any rise in number of XLogFlush() calls should roughly
> be accounted for by increased throughput. Am I right in interpreting
> it this way?
I think so. There certainly isn't any question that the increased
throughput and the increased number of XLogFlush() calls are because
of the new group commit behavior. The cost of a WAL write + flush is
more effectively amortized, and so XLogFlush() calls becomes cheaper.
I'm not prepared to make any predictions as to exactly how they might
relate.
--
Peter Geoghegan