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
> not
> > need to separate parameter in your patch.
> >
> Thanks!
> 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.

Some Suggestion:
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.

Dilip Kumar


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to