| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2019-12-09 15:56:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ0i_OZD+E5Fytv_x8VLkxeKYiNVXY2bF4xw_+er7SiBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:04 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, only 0.5GB of shared_buffers makes the default value of
> wal_buffers reach to the heaven. I think I can take numbers on that
> condition. (I doubt that it's meaningful if I increase only
> wal_buffers manually.)
Heaven seems a bit exalted, but I think we really only have a formula
because somebody might have really small shared_buffers for some
reason and be unhappy about us gobbling up a comparatively large
amount of memory for WAL buffers. The current limit means that normal
installations get what they need without manual tuning, and small
installations - where performance presumably sucks anyway for other
reasons - keep a small memory footprint.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-09 16:12:57 | Re: Questions about PostgreSQL implementation details |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-12-09 15:52:59 | Re: Questions about PostgreSQL implementation details |