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
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! |