Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3)
Date: 2006-11-27 21:47:57
Message-ID: 24656.1164664077@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I don't doubt that there may be a positive effect from increasing the
> block size. But we haven't seen any analysis of why that might be.

It seems at least as likely that increased block size would *decrease*
performance by requiring even small writes to do more physical I/O.
This applies to both data files and xlog.

But the real issue here is whether there are grounds for supporting
run-time changes in the block size. AFAICS the evidence for supporting
even compile-time changes is pretty weak; why should we take the likely
complexity and performance costs of making it run-time changeable?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-11-27 22:04:22 Re: Storing a dynahash for an entire connection or
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-11-27 21:30:38 Re: [CORE] RC1 blocker issues

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Shraibman 2006-11-27 22:08:45 doc patch for savepoints
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-11-27 21:08:10 Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3)