Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
От | Kevin Brown |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030214034646.GA1847@filer обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > I've just spent the last day and a half trying to benchmark our new database > > installation to find a good value for wal_buffers. The quick answer - there > > isn't, just leave it on the default of 8. > > I don't think this is based on a useful test for wal_buffers. The > wal_buffers setting only has to be large enough for the maximum amount > of WAL log data that your system emits between commits, because a commit > (from anyone) is going to flush the WAL data to disk (for everyone). What happens when the only transaction running emits more WAL log data than wal_buffers can handle? A flush happens when the WAL buffers fill up (that's what I'd expect)? Didn't find much in the documentation about it... -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: