On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:14:35 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not seen any gains from varying the WAL file size since then...
>
> I think the use-case for varying the WAL segment size is unrelated to
> performance of the master server, but would instead be concerned with
> adjusting the granularity of WAL log shipping.
*nod* I heard this argument several times. Simon: there was a discussion
about this topic in Prato last year. Since WAL logfiles are usually
binary stuff, the files can't be compressed much so a smaller logfile
size on a not-so-much-used system would save a noticeable amount of
bandwith (and cpu cycles for compression).
Kind regards
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
