Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like
>> "wal_buffers / 8".
> Because that'd be horrible performancewise on a system with many
> wal_buffers. There's several operations where all locks are checked in
> sequence (to see whether there's any stragglers that need to finish
> inserting) and even some where they're acquired concurrently (e.g. for
> xlog switch, checkpoint and such).
Hm. Well, if there are countervailing considerations as to how large is a
good value, that makes it even less likely that it's sensible to expose
it as a user tunable. A relevant analogy is that we don't expose a way
to adjust the number of lock table partitions at runtime.
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
