"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... Jeff does raise a good point, though -- it seems odd > that WAL-logging of this pruning would need to be synchronous. Yeah, we need to get to the bottom of that. If there's enough shared_buffer space then it shouldn't be. > We > support asynchronous commits -- why not use that feature > automatically for transactions where the only writes are this sort > of thing. Which raises an interesting question -- what happens to > the timings if your SELECTs are done with synchronous_commit = off? > I wonder if it would make any sense to implicitly use async commit > for a transaction which is declared READ ONLY or which never > acquires and XID? Huh? If there was never an XID, there's no commit WAL record, hence nothing to make asynchronous. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
