On 19 November 2013 22:19, Sawada Masahiko Wrote
> >> Thank you for comment.
> >> Actually, I had thought to add separate parameter.
> > I think that he said that if you can proof that amount of WAL is
> > almost same and without less performance same as before, you might
> > need to separate parameter in your patch.
> I took it wrong.
> I think that there are quite a few difference amount of WAL.
> > Did you test about amount of WAL size in your patch?
> Not yet. I will do that.
1. Patch applies cleanly to master HEAD.
2. No Compilation Warning.
3. It works as per the patch expectation.
1. Add new WAL level ("all") in comment in postgresql.conf
wal_level = hot_standby # minimal, archive, or
Performance Test Result:
Run with pgbench for 300 seconds
WAL level : hot_standby
WAL Size : 111BF8A8
TPS : 125
WAL level : all
WAL Size : 11DB5AF8
TPS : 122
* TPS is almost constant but WAL size is increased around 11M.
This is the first level of observation, I will continue to test few more
scenarios including performance test on standby.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: