Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> +1, I like the idea. Would it still be there to override if necessary?

> Depends what people want to do.  We could make the default "0kB", and
> define that to mean "auto-tune", or we could remove the parameter
> altogether.  I think I was envisioning the latter, but if people are
> hesitant to do that we could do the former instead.

I think we need to keep the override capability until the autotune
algorithm has proven itself in the field for a couple of years.

I agree with Josh that a negative value should be used to select the
autotune method.
        regards, tom lane