Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs?
Date: 2005-07-21 18:06:54
Message-ID: 200507211106.54656.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

People,

> So, overall, I see no reason to change that feature.

Me neither. If people are concerned about WAL on-disk size, they can reduce
the number of segments. In my experience, anyway, high segment numbers
don't provide any benefit unless you have a dedicated WAL disk.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2005-07-21 18:09:05 Re: Constraint Exclusion on all tables
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-21 18:06:22 Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH