Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Beena Emerson
Тема Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
Дата
Msg-id CAOG9ApELUqohv9f2CyVf2iDfG7NW1jQswuKdcpj+-QFVTPHyZw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote:

I'm in favor of 16,64,256,1024.


I don't see a particular reason for this, TBH. The sweet spots will be likely dependent hardware / OS configuration etc. Assuming there actually are sweet spots - no one demonstrated that yet.

Also, I don't see how supporting additional WAL sizes increases chance of incompatibility. We already allow that, so either the tools (e.g. backup solutions) assume WAL segments are always 16MB (in which case are essentially broken) or support valid file sizes (in which case they should have no issues with the new ones).

If we're going to do this, I'm in favor of deciding some reasonable upper limit (say, 1GB or 2GB sounds good), and allowing all 2^n values up to that limit.

I think the majority consensus is to use all valid values. Since 1GB is what we have finalized as the upper limit, lets continue with that for now. 


--

Beena Emerson

EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique