Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: 2011-01-13 23:20:00
Message-ID: 4D2F88A0.9010703@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert,

>> Unfortunately, we might still need a manual parameter for override
>> because of the interaction between wal_buffers and
>> synchronous_commit=off, since it sets the max size of the unflushed data
>> buffer. Discuss?
>
> Do we have any evidence there's actually a problem in that case, or
> that a larger value of wal_buffers solves it? I mean, the background
> writer is going to start a background flush as quickly as it can...

I don't think anyone has done any testing. However, the setting is
there and some users might be convinced that they need it.

>> And the "auto" setting should be -1, not 0kB. We use -1 for "use
>> default" for several other GUCs.
>
> No can do. Gotta have things in the same units.

That's certainly not true with, for example, log_temp_files.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-13 23:24:31 Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2011-01-13 23:13:43 Re: reviewers needed!