| From: | "Colin 't Hart" <colinthart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal segment size |
| Date: | 2025-12-17 16:10:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAMon-aSkPs=N5GHJsOzLs5RKcrba3=ng_6HUEKZy1=1GJgCEqg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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.
Any reason not to bump it up to 1GB? Or is that overkill?
/Colin
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 at 16:25, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-12-17 at 16:13 +0100, Colin 't Hart wrote:
> > I see very little advice on tuning WAL segment size.
> >
> > One of my clients has a few datawarehouses at around 8 - 16 TB
> >
> > On one of the nodes there are approx 15000 WAL segments of 16MB each,
> totalling
> > approx 230GB. The archiver is archiving approx one per second, so approx
> 4 hours to clear.
> >
> > Would we gain anything by bumping the WAL segment size?
>
> Very likely yes, if the problem is the overhead of starting the
> archive_command.
>
> Another thing that can slow down archiving is if you compress these
> segments
> too aggressively.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias Leisi | 2025-12-17 16:25:10 | Re: Record last SELECT on a row? |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-12-17 15:28:00 | Re: wal segment size |