| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Colin 't Hart" <colinthart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal segment size |
| Date: | 2025-12-17 17:21:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmm+yoNEQCV3qXceXm9rNoOAPYK0DQCpSqLkNGvGuOQ3W=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:10 AM Colin 't Hart <colinthart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Laurenz, that confirms what I was assuming. Archiving is via
> pgbackrest to a backup server, over SSH. Approx 750ms to archive each
> segment is crazy -- I'll check compression parameters too.
>
Switch to archive-async = on. When doing that, the typical time drops to
10ms or less. Also use a compress-type of lz4 or zst, which perform way
better than the default gz. If you are encrypting, that's a bottleneck you
just have to deal with, no shortcuts there. :)
tl;dr try other things before messing with the WAL size. The current size
can work very well even on very large and very, very busy systems.
Cheers,
Greg
--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-12-17 17:23:15 | Re: wal segment size |
| Previous Message | Thiemo Kellner | 2025-12-17 17:14:33 | Record last SELECT on a row? |