Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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: 2023-10-10 03:16:30
Message-ID: 240625.1696907790@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> 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?

Seems like that's doubling the overhead of WAL page headers. Do we need
to try to skinny those down?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-10-10 03:17:25 Re: PGDOCS - add more links in the pub/sub reference pages
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-10-10 03:11:58 Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag