"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I wonder though whether the wal_buffers setting interacts with the
>> ring size. Has everyone who's tested this used the same 16MB
>> wal_buffers setting as in Alan's original scenario?
> I had been using his postgresql.conf file, then added autovacuum =
> off. When I tried with setting the ring size to 16MB, I accidentally
> left off the step to copy the postgresql.conf file, and got better
> performance.
Huh, that's bizarre. I can see that increasing shared_buffers should
make no difference in this test case (we're not using them all anyway).
But why should increasing wal_buffers make it slower? I forget the
walwriter's control algorithm at the moment ... maybe it works harder
when wal buffers are full?
BTW, I committed the change to use 16MB; that will be in RC2.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
