Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

From: Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>
To: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Date: 2010-03-25 16:05:47
Message-ID: 1269533147.5155.41.camel@bnicholson-desktop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 20:31 +0530, Tadipathri Raghu wrote:
> Hi All,
>  
> Can anybody clarify on this, why wal_buffer is 64kb and what is
> advantages and disadvantages in increasing or decreasing the
> wal_buffer.

This is addressed in the documentation.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/wal-configuration.html

-- 
Brad Nicholson  416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2010-03-25 17:15:58
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-03-25 15:44:30
Subject: Re: default_statistics_target

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group