| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-03-02 12:56:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYw5vPNN4nQejxzqy9+fzEL5iv4wL3LhNXWfRkZgV0mCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 01:32 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> But ... I thought we were going to raise the default for max_wal_size to
>> something much higher, like 1GB? That's what was discussed on this
>> thread.
>
> No conclusion was reached on that. Me and some others were against raising
> the default, while others were for it.
I guess that's a fair summary of the discussion, but I still think
it's the wrong conclusion. Right now, you can't get reasonable write
performance with PostgreSQL even on tiny databases (a few GB) without
increasing that setting by an order of magnitude. It seems an awful
shame to go to all the work to mitigate the downsides of setting a
large checkpoint_segments and then still ship a tiny default setting.
I've got to believe that the number of people who think 128MB of WAL
is tolerable but 512MB or 1GB is excessive is almost nobody. Disk
sizes these days are measured in TB.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-03-02 13:21:48 | Re: File based Incremental backup v8 |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2015-03-02 12:51:59 | Re: Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission |