On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 01:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I agree that #4 is best. I'm not sure it's worth the cost. I'm not worried
>>> > at all about the risk of master/slave sync thing, per previous statement.
>>> > But if it does have performance implications, per Andres suggestion, then
>>> > making it configurable at initdb time probably comes with a cost that's 
>>> > not
>>> > worth paying.
>> At this point it's hard to judge, because we don't have any idea what
>> the cost might be.  I guess if we want to pursue this approach,
>> somebody will have to code it up and benchmark it.  But what I'm
>> inclined to do for starters is put together a patch to go from 16MB ->
>> 64MB.  Committing that early this cycle will give us time to
>> reconsider if that turns out to be painful for reasons we haven't
>> thought of yet.  And give tool authors time to make adjustments, if
>> any are needed.
> The one thing I'd be worried about with the increase in size is folks
> using PostgreSQL for very small databases.  If your database is only
> 30MB or so in size, the increase in size of the WAL will be pretty
> significant (+144MB for the base 3 WAL segments).  I'm not sure this is
> a real problem which users will notice (in today's scales, 144MB ain't
> much), but if it turns out to be, it would be nice to have a way to
> switch it back *just for them* without recompiling.

I think you may be forgetting that "the base 3 WAL segments" is no
longer the default configuration.  checkpoint_segments=3 is history;
we now have max_wal_size=1GB, which is a maximum of 64 WAL segments,
not 3.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to