Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
От | Gavin Flower |
---|---|
Тема | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9dd811a2-bf20-e764-9407-8561f2647c25@archidevsys.co.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/08/16 05:43, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/25/2016 01:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I agree that #4 is best. I'm not sure it's worth the cost. I'm not worried >>>> at all about the risk of master/slave sync thing, per previous statement. >>>> But if it does have performance implications, per Andres suggestion, then >>>> making it configurable at initdb time probably comes with a cost that's not >>>> worth paying. >> At this point it's hard to judge, because we don't have any idea what >> the cost might be. I guess if we want to pursue this approach, >> somebody will have to code it up and benchmark it. But what I'm >> inclined to do for starters is put together a patch to go from 16MB -> >> 64MB. Committing that early this cycle will give us time to >> reconsider if that turns out to be painful for reasons we haven't >> thought of yet. And give tool authors time to make adjustments, if >> any are needed. > The one thing I'd be worried about with the increase in size is folks > using PostgreSQL for very small databases. If your database is only > 30MB or so in size, the increase in size of the WAL will be pretty > significant (+144MB for the base 3 WAL segments). I'm not sure this is > a real problem which users will notice (in today's scales, 144MB ain't > much), but if it turns out to be, it would be nice to have a way to > switch it back *just for them* without recompiling. > Let such folk use Microsoft Access??? <Ducks & runs away very fast!> More seriously: Surely most such people would be using very old hardware & not likely to be upgrading to the most recent version of pg in the near future? And for the ones using modern hardware: either they have enough resources not to notice, or very probably will know enough to hunt round for a way to reduce the WAL size - I strongly suspect. Currently, I'm not support pg in any production environment, and using it for testing & keeping up-to-date with pg. So it would affect me - however, I have enough resources so it is no problem in practice. Cheers, Gavin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: