Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?

> And the risks are rather asymmetric. I don't know of any problem from
> too large a buffer until it starts crowding out shared_buffers, while
> under-sizing leads to the rather drastic performance consequences of
> AdvanceXLInsertBuffer having to wait on the WALWriteLock while holding
> the WALInsertLock,

Suppose you have a large update which generates lots of WAL, some WAL
segment switching will take place, and therefore some fsync()s. If
wal_buffers is small enough that it fills up during the time it takes to
fsync() the previous WAL segment, isn't there a risk that all WAL writes
are stopped, waiting for the end of this fsync() ?