| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |
| Date: | 2023-10-09 23:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20231009233620.vkj3g6mxk3czg27g@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-10-09 19:26:54 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 04:08:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's an alternative approach we could take, which is to write in 4KB
> > increments, while keeping 8KB pages. With the current format that's not
> > obviously a bad idea. But given there aren't really advantages in 8KB WAL
> > pages, it seems we should just go for 4KB?
>
> How do we handle shorter maximum row lengths and shorter maximum index
> entry lengths?
The WAL blocksize shouldn't influence either, unless we have a bug somewhere.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-09 23:45:16 | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-09 23:26:54 | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |