Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57E955C5A5
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:46:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1SqrFO-0005tY-FS
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:46:24 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6GJk8Tl025170;
	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:46:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>, Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>,
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harold_A=2E_Gim=E9nez?= <harold.gimenez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoYnqPf03rYJo3G6dMrqShQF2iMtfpYBPgWdxtEdacaX-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FFCCAC4.4030503@ringerc.id.au>
	<CAAZKuFZ9tYeC1K5ZayZgztm3re_7ytbsEYFa0wwXirB6Hfm+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<23853.1342015548@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAAZKuFYsK+ZQuC=zf0xE=M-LNa02tB7RBy3CHEUyq7LWCkK6jQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1ydaypgAeZxyaMc=KhJJw5riGMBiLpvSqOO42=qArRZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<32078D4B40DD40ECB739D0ECD7D95996@gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1zJK6WiS9-6eO8rNmRpKSSB4=uw2mTsD=k64mNh__=Dcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1w7vLA63hf-+Uc_j61CvOdKixsOHph9d0H-aLNBYgfX=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1yLXvODRZZ_=fgrEeJfk2tvZPTTD-8n8BwrAhNz_WBT0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<19949.1342376967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaTf=zjP37-oG7fr1VbGfuvHSfpajgLZ65EeSJX2mmquA@mail.gmail.com>
	<9603.1342454919@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+Tgmoa4ta60Y-rZpEPDRCQKJV8-Uqe0P610Jgj2q7e+fondig@mail.gmail.com>
	<11952.1342456591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYRXMWQ_DGmmqu3Zp8oW3Lt-9Lc1q3EHaV_ZmjWqaPkuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<13011.1342457859@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaEPLo5fmBX1JSkGK3umAamFVghwY7qDb4_QqzteZgUPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<15955.1342466333@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmoYnqP!
	f03rYJo3G6dMrqShQF2iMtfpYBPgWdxtEdacaX-w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:26:38 -0400"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:46:07 -0400
Message-ID: <25169.1342467967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201207/730
X-Sequence-Number: 211413

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yes, it seems to have done just that.  The comment for
> ForwardFsyncRequest is a few bricks short of a load too:
> ...
> Line 2 seems to have been mechanically changed from "background
> writer" to "checkpointer", but of course it should still say
> "background writer" in this case.

Yeah, found that one already (it's probably my fault).

Will see about fixing the stats in a separate patch.  I just wanted to
know if the issue had been dealt with in some non-obvious fashion.

			regards, tom lane