Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The  WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is
>> there anything else I have missed?
> 
> I see various issues raised but not properly addressed
> 
> 1. we would need to drop support for segment sizes < 16MB unless we
> adopt a new incompatible filename format.
> I think at 16MB the naming should be the same as now and that
> WALfilename -> LSN is very important.
> For this release, I think we should just allow >= 16MB and avoid the
> issue thru lack of time.

+1.

> 2. It's not clear to me the advantage of being able to pick varying
> filesizes. I see great disadvantage in having too many options, which
> greatly increases the chance of incompatibility, annoyance and
> breakage. I favour a small number of values that have been shown by
> testing to be sweet spots in performance and usability. (1GB has been
> suggested)

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

> 3. New file allocation has been a problem raised with this patch for
> some months now.

I've been playing around with this and I don't think short tests show
larger sizes off to advantage.  Larger segments will definitely perform
more poorly until Postgres starts recycling WAL.  Once that happens I
think performance differences should be negligible, though of course
this needs to be verified with longer-running tests.

If archive_timeout is set then there will also be additional time taken
to zero out potentially larger unused parts of the segment.  I don't see
this as an issue, however, because if archive_timeout is being triggered
then the system is very likely under lower than usual load.

> Lack of clarity and/or movement on these issues is very, very close to
> getting the patch rejected now. Let's not approach this with the
> viewpoint that I or others want it to be rejected, lets work forwards
> and get some solid changes that will improve the world without causing
> problems.

I would definitely like to see this go in, though I agree with Peter
that we need a lot more testing.  I'd like to see some build farm
animals testing with different sizes at the very least, even if there's
no time to add new tests.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net