On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:08:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > You can also set min_recycle_wal_size = checkpoint_wal_size, which > gets you the same behavior as without the patch, except that it's > more intuitive to set it in terms of "MB of WAL space required", > instead of "# of segments between checkpoints". > > Does that make sense? I'd love to hear feedback on how people > setting up production databases would like to tune these things. The > reason for the auto-tuning between the min and max is to be able to > set reasonable defaults e.g for embedded systems that don't have a > DBA to do tuning. Currently, it's very difficult to come up with a > reasonable default value for checkpoint_segments which would work > well for a wide range of systems. The PostgreSQL default of 3 is way > way too low for most systems. On the other hand, if you set it to, > say, 20, that's a lot of wasted space for a small database that's > not updated much. With this patch, you can set "max_wal_size=1GB" > and if the database ends up actually only needing 100 MB of WAL, it > will only use that much and not waste 900 MB for useless > preallocated WAL files.
Where are we on this? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
