Re: checkpointer continuous flushing

Hello Andres,

>> I would rather separate them, unless this is a blocker.
>
> I think it is a blocker.

Hmmm. This is an argument...

>> This version seems already quite effective and very light. ISTM that 
>> adding a sort phase would mean reworking significantly how the 
>> checkpointer processes pages.
>
> Meh. The patch for that wasn't that big.

Hmmm. I think it should be implemented as Tom suggested, that is per 
chunks of shared buffers, in order to avoid allocating a "large" memory.

> The problem with doing this separately is that without the sorting this
> will be slower for throughput in a good number of cases. So we'll have
> yet another GUC that's very hard to tune.

ISTM that the two aspects are orthogonal, which would suggests two gucs 
anyway.

-- 
Fabien.