On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:35:37PM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote: > It's just the number of disk revolutions per second. Without caching, each > WAL flush tends to require a whole revolution unless the on-disk layout of > the filesystem is _very_ strange. You can get multiple commits per WAL > flush if you have many concurrent connections, but with a single connection > that doesn't apply. Is that really true? In theory block n+1 could be half a revolution after block n, allowing you to commit two transactions per revolution. If you work with the assumption that blocks are consecutive I can see your point, but is that a safe assumption? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
