Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > 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. I think the relevant one for that case is the minimum, though: #min_wal_size = 80MB which corresponds to 5 segments. I suppose the default value for this minimum would change to some multiple of 64MB. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
