Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ

From: "Mark Wong" <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ
Date: 2008-05-02 16:12:32
Message-ID: 70c01d1d0805020912s7ce086f1sfd06884af34e0b45@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Mark Wong" <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> > As someone who has tested varying both those parameters it feels
> > awkward to have a configure option for one and not the other, or vice
> > versa. I have slightly stronger feelings for having them both as
> > configure options because it's easier to script, but feel a little
> > more strongly about having BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ both as either
> > configure options or in pg_config_manual.h. To have them such that
> > one needs to change them in different manners makes a tad more work in
> > automating testing. So my case is just for ease of testing.
>
> Well, that's a fair point. Another issue though is whether it makes
> sense for XLOG_BLCKSZ to be different from BLCKSZ at all, at least in
> the default case. They are both the unit of I/O and it's not clear
> why you'd want different units. Mark, has your testing shown any
> indication that they really ought to be separately configurable?
> I could see having the same configure switch set both of 'em.

I still believe it makes sense to have them separated. I did have
some data, which has since been destroyed, that suggested there were
some system characterization differences for OLTP workloads with
PostgreSQL. Let's hope those disks get delivered to Portland soon. :)

Regards,
Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-02 16:16:40 Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-02 16:01:37 Re: [HACKERS] GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction