On 17 January 2014 13:20, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >> On 17 January 2014 13:01, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> Robert Haas reported that setting it to 32MB can yield a considerable >> performance benefit: >> >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobgMv_aaakLoasBt=5iYfi=kdcOUz0X9TdYe0c2SZ=2...@mail.gmail.com > > > In that case, sholdn't the autotuning be changed to not limit it at 16MB? :)
Well, that's the question. Do we have a heuristic sweet-spot that folk would agree on? -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
