Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: 2011-01-13 23:24:31
Message-ID: 4D2F354F0200002500039510@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Would anyone like to argue vigorously for or against the above
> proposal?

Greg's numbers look reasonable to me, and there's nobody I'd trust
more to come up with reasonable numbers for this. One less tunable
is a good thing, especially since this designed to scale from
someone slapping it on his laptop for a first quick try, all the way
up to industrial strength production environments. I guess a manual
override doesn't bother me too much, but I am a bit dubious of its
value, and there is value in keeping the GUC count down....

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-01-13 23:29:13 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-01-13 23:20:00 Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers