Robert Lor <Robert.Lor@xxxxxxx> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, those seem plausible, although the hold time for >> CheckpointStartLock seems awfully high --- about 20 msec >> per transaction. Are you using a nonzero commit_delay? >> > I didn't change commit_delay which defaults to zero. Hmmm ... AFAICS this must mean that flushing the WAL data to disk at transaction commit time takes (most of) 20 msec on your hardware. Which still seems high --- on most modern disks that'd be at least two disk revolutions, maybe more. What's the disk hardware you're testing on, particularly its RPM spec? regards, tom lane
