On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2 January 2017 at 21:23, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> It's not clear from the thread that there is consensus that this feature is 
>> desired. In particular, the performance aspects of changing segment size 
>> from a C constant to a variable are in question. Someone with access to 
>> large hardware should test that. Andres[1] and Robert[2] did suggest that 
>> the option could be changed to a bitshift, which IMHO would also solve some 
>> sanity-checking issues.
> Overall, Robert has made a good case. The only discussion now is about
> the knock-on effects it causes.
> One concern that has only barely been discussed is the effect of
> zero-ing new WAL files. That is a linear effect and will adversely
> effect performance as WAL segment size increases.

Sorry, but I am not able to understand why this is a problem?  The
bigger the size of WAL segment, lesser the number of files.  So IIUC,
then it can only impact if zero-ing two 16MB files is cheaper than
zero-ing one 32MB file.  Is that your theory or you have something
else in mind?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

Reply via email to