| From: | Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Roger Harkavy <rogerharkavy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: Add A Glossary |
| Date: | 2020-03-24 19:40:20 |
| Message-ID: | fbe9b2d9-9f89-83bd-7215-0cc646388ccc@purtz.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On 24.03.20 19:46, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Do we use shared_buffers for WAL ?
> No.
What's about the explanation in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-wal.html :
"wal_buffers (integer) The amount of shared memory used for WAL data
that has not yet been written to disk. The default setting of -1 selects
a size equal to 1/32nd (about 3%) of shared_buffers, ... " ? My
understanding was, that the parameter wal_buffers grabs some of the
existing shared_buffers for its own purpose. Is this a
misinterpretation? Are shared_buffers and wal_buffers two different
shared memory areas?
Kind regards, Jürgen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-03-24 19:58:40 | Re: Add A Glossary |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2020-03-24 19:27:21 | Re: Add A Glossary |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-03-24 19:58:40 | Re: Add A Glossary |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-24 19:38:34 | Re: Missing errcode() in ereport |