| From: | Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sam Stearns <sam(dot)stearns(at)dat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres Parameters |
| Date: | 2025-11-11 11:19:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5-nLBPuxwQdZ0mFNMTP9kyQ+b9qY9PYKKWf=Q+SRxJS1iiKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hi,
You could also use this query, if the ratio is low, that means there is no
pressure on wal size and you can keep the max_wal_size value as it is.
SELECT
num_timed,
num_requested,
round((num_requested::numeric / NULLIF(num_timed + num_requested, 0)) *
100, 2)
AS requested_pct
FROM pg_stat_checkpointer;
+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| num_timed | num_requested | requested_pct |
+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| 3502 | 146 | 4.00 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------+
(1 row)
Regards,
Fabrice
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:28 AM Sam Stearns <sam(dot)stearns(at)dat(dot)com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Could someone advise on how to determine the correct settings for the
> following, please?:
>
>
> - checkpoint_timeout
> - max_wal_size
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sam
>
> --
>
> Samuel Stearns
> Team Lead - Database
> c: 971 762 6879 | o: 971 762 6879 | DAT.com
>
> <https://www.dat.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=DAT_email_signature_link>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sam Stearns | 2025-11-11 15:24:49 | Re: Postgres Parameters |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-11-11 08:57:13 | Re: Postgres Parameters |