Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: 2011-01-14 00:25:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> +1, I like the idea. Would it still be there to override if necessary?

> Depends what people want to do.  We could make the default "0kB", and
> define that to mean "auto-tune", or we could remove the parameter
> altogether.  I think I was envisioning the latter, but if people are
> hesitant to do that we could do the former instead.

I think we need to keep the override capability until the autotune
algorithm has proven itself in the field for a couple of years.

I agree with Josh that a negative value should be used to select the
autotune method.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2011-01-14 00:31:07
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-01-14 00:22:31
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group