Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

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(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.