Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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...

It's a risk-reward thing really. The reward for removing it is that a
few lines of code and a small section of the documentation go away.
It's not very big. The risk seems low, but it's not zero. Let's say
this goes in, we get to 9.2 or later, and a survey suggests that no one
has needed to ever set wal_buffers when deploying 9.1. At that point I
think everyone would feel much better considering to nuke it
altogether. I just looked at the code again when developing the patch,
and there's really not enough benefit to removing it to worry about
taking any risk right now.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books