On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-20 16:32:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Requiring a non-default compile time or even just cluster creation time
>> > option for tuning isn't something worth expanding energy on imo.
>>
>> I don't agree.  The latency requirements on an archive_command when
>> you're churning out 16MB files multiple times per second are insanely
>> tight, and saying that we shouldn't increase the size because it's
>> better to go redesign a bunch of other things that will eventually
>> *maybe* remove the need for archive_command does not seem like a
>> reasonable response.
>
> Oh, I'm on board with increasing the default size a bit. A different
> default size isn't a non-default compile time option anymore though, and
> I don't think 1GB is a reasonable default.

But that's not the question.  What Peter said was: "maybe we should at
least *allow* some larger sizes, for testing out".  I see very little
merit in restricting the values that people can set via configure.
That just makes life difficult.  If a user picks a setting that
doesn't perform well, oops.

> Running multiple archive_commands concurrently - pretty easy to
> implement - isn't the same as removing the need for archive command. I'm
> pretty sure that continously,and if necessary concurrently, archiving a
> bunch of 64MB files is going to work better than irregularly
> creating / transferring 1GB files.

I'm not trying to block you from implementing parallel archiving, but
right now we don't have it.

-- 
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to