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
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Marti Raudsepp||Date: 2010-11-17 00:01:21|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1?|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-11-16 23:25:13|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for