Why Wal_buffer is 64KB

From:	Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:	pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Date:	2010-03-25 15:01:18
Message-ID:	645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com
Views:	Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:	2010-03-25 15:01:18 from Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>  2010-03-25 16:05:47 from Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>  2010-03-25 17:15:58 from Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>   2010-03-25 18:14:38 from "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>    2010-03-26 03:19:21 from Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>     2010-03-26 13:43:45 from "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>      2010-03-26 14:00:38 from Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>       2010-03-29 06:00:43 from Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>        2010-03-29 06:45:44 from Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>         2010-03-29 07:05:50 from Tadipathri Raghu <traghu(dot)dba(at)gmail(dot)com>        2010-03-30 14:43:27 from Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Lists:	pgsql-performance

Responses

• Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB at 2010-03-25 16:05:47 from Brad Nicholson
• Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB at 2010-03-25 17:15:58 from Jaime Casanova

Browse pgsql-performance by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Robert Haas	2010-03-25 15:44:30	Re: default_statistics_target
Previous Message	Matthew Wakeling	2010-03-25 10:35:28	Re: memory question