Re: Hot Standby tuning for btree_xlog_vacuum()

On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> Objections to commit?
> 
> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this.  You haven't even
> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.

I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to be making changes, but your performance statement confuses me. If a fairly small patch means we can avoid un-necessary reads why shouldn't we avoid them?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net