| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2016-09-21 14:50:13 |
| Message-ID: | f8763398-3294-96e9-6fa6-6cf6f6d52e67@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/21/16 8:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, I'm on board with increasing the default size a bit. A different
>> > default size isn't a non-default compile time option anymore though, and
>> > I don't think 1GB is a reasonable default.
> But that's not the question. What Peter said was: "maybe we should at
> least *allow* some larger sizes, for testing out". I see very little
> merit in restricting the values that people can set via configure.
> That just makes life difficult. If a user picks a setting that
> doesn't perform well, oops.
Right. If we think that a larger size can have some performance benefit
and we think that 64MB might be a good new default (as was the initial
suggestion), then we should surely allow at least say 128 and 256 to be
tried out.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-09-21 15:03:45 | wal_segment size vs max_wal_size |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-21 14:31:30 | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |