| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why does PostgresNode.pm set such a low value of max_wal_senders? |
| Date: | 2020-10-01 08:01:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20201001080150.GM8130@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:38:59PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> In favor of minimal values, we've had semaphore-starved buildfarm members in
> the past. Perhaps those days are over, seeing that this commit has not yet
> broken a buildfarm member in that particular way. Keeping max_wal_senders=10
> seems fine.
Indeed, I am not spotting anything suspicious here.
> No, PostgreSQL commit 54c2ecb changed that. I recommend an explicit
> max_wal_senders=10 in PostgresNode, which makes it easy to test
> wal_level=minimal:
>
> printf '%s\n%s\n%s\n' 'log_statement = all' 'wal_level = minimal' 'max_wal_senders = 0' >/tmp/minimal.conf
> make check-world TEMP_CONFIG=/tmp/minimal.conf
>
> thorntail is doing the equivalent, hence the failures.
Ah, thanks, I have missed this piece. So we really need to have a
value set in this module after all.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthieu Garrigues | 2020-10-01 08:13:44 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-10-01 07:51:59 | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |