| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 23:31:34 |
| Message-ID: | 9058.1289950294@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
>> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
>> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
>> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
>> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
> We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes, but we could
very probably increase it by a factor of 10 or so without anyone
squawking. It's been awhile since I heard of anyone trying to run PG in
4MB shmmax. How much would a change of that size help?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2010-11-17 00:01:21 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-11-16 23:25:13 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |