Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL
От | Lincoln Yeoh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5.2.1.1.1.20030723003548.02cd7c88@mbox.jaring.my обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
If I'm doing a reasonably sized COPY e.g. a few hundred megabytes, would WAL segment size and number be relevant? If so any pointers on how I should tweak stuff? How about for speeding up many inserts? At 12:13 AM 7/22/2003 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >AFAIR you cannot force the system to have only one WAL segment; it >*will* make another one when it has to. > >Once it has established a checkpoint within the current WAL segment, >it is able to delete the previous segment, and will do so if you've >set the WAL parameters that small. I don't really recommend doing >so however. Creating and deleting WAL segments is expensive, and not >very productive compared to recycling them. The out-of-the-box >settings allow the system to recycle three or so WAL segments. >Unless you're truly desperate for disk space you should not reduce >the default WAL settings. > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: