People,
So, overall, I see no reason to change that feature.
Me neither. If people are concerned about WAL on-disk size, they can reduce
the number of segments.In my experience, anyway, high segment numbers
don't provide any benefit unless you have a dedicated WAL disk.
--
Josh Berkus
Hello,
Tom made mention earlier this week that upping the checkpoint segments
might be a bad idea because we are committing someone to 32 megs per
segment. I thought it odd at the time but I figured it was an 8.1 thing.
As I review the 8.1dev postgresql.conf the checkpoint_segments option
still
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:53:57PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Tom made mention earlier this week that upping the checkpoint segments
might be a bad idea because we are committing someone to 32 megs per
segment. I thought it odd at the time but I figured it was an 8.1 thing.
As I review
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is that in general, the 16 MiB figure is correct, but in
pathological cases there can be up to two WAL segments on disk per
checkpoint_segment, so 32 MiB.
The reason for this is that after a checkpoint finishes, we recycle
WAL files up to the
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 17:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not certain how important that really is; it was part of
Vadim's original design for WAL and no one ever particularly
questioned it.
Anybody setting checkpoint_segments high is likely to have a dedicated
WAL disk anyway, which easily gives
