From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: wal_buffers |
Date: | 2012-02-20 04:26:10 |
Message-ID: | 4F41CB62.3030002@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/19/2012 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we might want to consider
> adjusting our auto-tuning formula for wal_buffers to allow for a
> higher cap, although this is obviously not enough data to draw any
> firm conclusions.
That's an easy enough idea to throw into my testing queue. The 16MB
auto-tuning upper bound was just the easiest number to suggest that was
obviously useful and unlikely to be wasteful. One of the reasons
wal_buffers remains a user-visible parameter was that no one every
really did an analysis at what its useful upper bound was--and that
number might move up as other bottlenecks are smashed too.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-02-20 05:04:14 | Re: Future of our regular expression code |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2012-02-20 04:17:57 | Re: Initial 9.2 pgbench write results |