Re: wal_buffers = -1

On 17 January 2014 13:01, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Is there any real use-case for not setting wal_buffers to -1 these days?
>
> Or should we just remove it and use the -1 behaviour at all times?
>
> IIRC we discussed not keeping it at all when the autotune behavior was
> introduced, but said we wanted to keep it "just in case". If we're not ready
> to remove it, then does that just mean that we need to fix it so we can?

Robert Haas reported that setting it to 32MB can yield a considerable
performance benefit:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobgMv_aaakLoasBt=5iYfi=kdcOUz0X9TdYe0c2SZ=2Pg@mail.gmail.com

-- 
Thom