Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363C163506B;
	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:13:20 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 51527-09; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.anarazel.de (mail.anarazel.de [217.115.131.40])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EEA6345E1;
	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:13:09 -0400 (AST)
Received: from alap2.localnet (e178208094.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.208.94])
	by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BC1C448003;
	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:13:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync (was 8.4.1
	ubuntu karmic slow createdb)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:13:03 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.33-rc3-andres-00151-gfd6fedc; KDE/4.3.90;
	x86_64; ; )
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	Michael Clemmons <glassresistor@gmail.com>,
	Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
References: <4427a97a0912101235x3ade510blcc00d5ce9883c6b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<407d949e1001190652i43f4f276x6a485f375647219a@mail.gmail.com>
	<407d949e1001190657m7cd289d5s74c3d8c475e0bdc7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <407d949e1001190657m7cd289d5s74c3d8c475e0bdc7@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201001200513.04510.andres@anarazel.de>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.185 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_40=-0.185
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201001/417
X-Sequence-Number: 37297

On Tuesday 19 January 2010 15:57:14 Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Barring any objections shall I commit it like this?
> 
> Actually before we get there could someone who demonstrated the
> speedup verify that this patch still gets that same speedup?
At least on the three machines I tested last time the result is still in the 
same ballpark.

Andres