Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024
wal_buffers
as opposed to 8?
Waste of RAM? You'd be better off leaving that 8 meg available for use
as general-purpose buffers ...
What I mean is say you have an enterprise
Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just spent the last day and a half trying to benchmark our new database
installation to find a good value for wal_buffers. The quick answer - there
isn't, just leave it on the default of 8.
I don't think this is
Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What happens when the only transaction running emits more WAL log data
than wal_buffers can handle? A flush happens when the WAL buffers
fill up (that's what I'd expect)? Didn't find much in the
documentation about it...
A write, not a flush (ie, we
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I mean is say you have an enterprise server doing heaps of transactions
with lots of work. If you have scads of RAM, could you just shove up
wal_buffers really high and assume it will improve performance?
There is no such thing as
