Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Date: 2017-03-22 21:33:37
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/22/17 3:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/22/17 15:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If changing WAL sizes catches on, I do think we should keep thinking
>> about a new format for a future release,
> I think that means that I'm skeptical about changing the default size
> right now.

I think if we don't change the default size it's very unlikely I would
use alternate WAL segment sizes or recommend that anyone else does, at
least in v10.

I simply don't think it would get the level of testing required to be
production worthy and I doubt that most tool writers would be quick to
add support for a feature that very few people (if any) use.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-03-22 21:34:40 Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-03-22 21:03:45 Re: extended statistics: n-distinct