From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Make WAL segment size configurable at initdb time. |
Date: | 2018-11-10 02:45:18 |
Message-ID: | f572c66f-1840-b789-04e2-b767f4765c3a@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 10/5/18 1:03 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> On 10/5/18 5:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-09-20 11:48:08 -0400, David Steele wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
>>> index e1073ac6d3..3bfd172441 100644
>>> --- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
>>> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
>>> @@ -8440,10 +8440,8 @@ dynamic_library_path =
>>> 'C:\tools\postgresql;H:\my_project\lib;$libdir'
>>> </term>
>>> <listitem>
>>> <para>
>>> - Reports the number of blocks (pages) in a WAL segment file.
>>> - The total size of a WAL segment file in bytes is equal to
>>> - <varname>wal_segment_size</varname> multiplied by
>>> <varname>wal_block_size</varname>;
>>> - by default this is 16MB. See <xref
>>> linkend="wal-configuration"/> for
>>> + Reports the size of write ahead log segments.
>>> + The default value is 16MB. See <xref
>>> linkend="wal-configuration"/> for
>>> more information.
>>> </para>
>>> </listitem>
>>
>> Why is this actually more correct? You mean because we have a conversion
>> that does the mb conversion at display time?
>
> In pre-11 versions of Postgres, you get this:
>
> postgres=# select setting, unit from pg_settings where name =
> 'wal_segment_size';
> setting | unit
> ---------+------
> 2048 | 8kB
>
> But in v11 you get this:
>
> select setting, unit from pg_settings where name = 'wal_segment_size';
> setting | unit
> ----------+------
> 16777216 | B
>
> So, while the WAL segment size used to be expressed in terms of 8K pages
> it is now expressed in terms of absolute bytes. This seemed to me to be
> a very deliberate change in the original commit so I guessed it was done
> for clarity, but that the docs didn't get the message.
Thoughts on this?
I know it's minor in the grand scheme of things but it caused me some
confusion when I was updating pgBackRest for v11 and I imagine it might
do the same for others.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-10 03:04:24 | pgsql: Fix error-cleanup mistakes in exec_stmt_call(). |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-10 01:42:57 | pgsql: Fix missing role dependencies for some schema and type ACLs. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-10 03:05:08 | Re: repeated procedure call error |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-10 01:41:46 | Re: Does slot_deform_tuple need to care about dropped columns? |