Re: wal_buffers = -1
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: wal_buffers = -1 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwuMFf+5KwbrsRY_mh88up6e2iErKeamzS6Yiv-i8LHEw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: wal_buffers = -1 (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: wal_buffers = -1
Re: wal_buffers = -1 |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:01, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:Robert Haas reported that setting it to 32MB can yield a considerable
> 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?
performance benefit:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobgMv_aaakLoasBt=5iYfi=kdcOUz0X9TdYe0c2SZ=2Pg@mail.gmail.com
In that case, sholdn't the autotuning be changed to not limit it at 16MB? :)
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: