Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> We still don't know enough about the situation to know what a solution
> might look like.  Is the slowdown Josh is seeing due to the extra CPU
> cost of the CRCs, or the extra I/O cost, or excessive locking of the
> WAL-related data structures while we do this stuff, or ???.  Need more
> data.

I wonder if a different BLCKSZ would make a difference either way. Say, 
1024 bytes instead of the default 8192.

- Heikki