Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)
Date: 2017-08-30 01:14:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQGwLNWGdTRpcB418ZdAcuCcd5VKDhpVYLOaOsYWXwshQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than
>> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet.
>
> 1GB will be the limit anyway.

Yeah, but imagine that we'd want to raise that even more up. By using
bytes, int64 GUCs become mandatory, or we'd come back into using MBs
for this parameter, bringing us back to the original implementation.
That's something worth thinking about.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-08-30 01:16:09 Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-08-30 01:06:51 Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)