Gavin Flower wrote: > On 26/08/16 05:43, Josh Berkus 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. > > > Let such folk use Microsoft Access??? <Ducks & runs away very fast!> > > > More seriously: > Surely most such people would be using very old hardware & not likely to be > upgrading to the most recent version of pg in the near future? And for the > ones using modern hardware: either they have enough resources not to notice, > or very probably will know enough to hunt round for a way to reduce the WAL > size - I strongly suspect.
I've seen people with unusual environments, such as running Pg in some embedded platform with minimal resources, where they were baffled that Postgres used so much disk space on files that were barely written to and never read. It wasn't a question of there being "large" drives to buy, but one of not wanting to have a drive in the first place. Now, I grant that this was a few years ago already and disk tech (SSDs) has changed that world; maybe that argument doesn't apply anymore. -- 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
