From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |
Date: | 2023-10-09 23:45:16 |
Message-ID: | ZSSQjIYdjFxw_dp9@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-10-09 19:26:54 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 04:08:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > There's an alternative approach we could take, which is to write in 4KB
> > > increments, while keeping 8KB pages. With the current format that's not
> > > obviously a bad idea. But given there aren't really advantages in 8KB WAL
> > > pages, it seems we should just go for 4KB?
> >
> > How do we handle shorter maximum row lengths and shorter maximum index
> > entry lengths?
>
> The WAL blocksize shouldn't influence either, unless we have a bug somewhere.
Oh, good point.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-10-09 23:46:26 | Re: post-recovery amcheck expectations |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-09 23:36:20 | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |