
> Would it be possible to split the WAL traffic into two sets of files,

Sure, downside is two fsyncs :-( When I first suggested physical log 
I had a separate file in mind, but that is imho only a small issue.

Of course people with more than 3 disks could benefit from a split.

Tom: If your ratio of physical pages vs WAL records is so bad, the config
should simply be changes to do fewer checkpoints (say every 20 min like a 
typical Informix setup).

Andreas

Mon, 21 May 2001 18:00:58 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> Tom: If your ratio of physical pages vs WAL records is so bad, the config
> should simply be changes to do fewer checkpoints (say every 20 min like a 
> typical Informix setup).

I was using the default configuration.  What caused the problem was
probably not so much the standard 5-minute time-interval-driven
checkpoints, as it was the standard every-3-WAL-segments checkpoints.
Possibly we ought to increase that number?

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 21 May 2001 12:06:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem 