> I sort of agree with you that the current checkpoint_segments
> parameter is a bit hard to tune, at least if your goal is to control
> the amount of disk space that will be used by WAL files. But I'm not
> sure your proposal is better. Instead of having a complicated formula
> for predicting how much disk space would get used by a given value for
> checkpoint_segments, we'd have a complicated formula for the amount of
> WAL that would force a checkpoint based on max_wal_size.
Yes, but the complicated formula would then be *in our code* instead of
being inflicted on the user, as it now is.
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gnanakumar||Date: 2010-10-28 07:57:02|
|Subject: Re: pg_ctl: server does not shut down|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-10-28 04:08:39|
|Subject: Re: Composite Types and Function Parameters|