Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 08/30/2017 03:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: Do you think that we should worry about wal segment

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

Hi, To make it clear: I don't have a strong opinion on these, I'm happy enough to commit the patch as is, minus one unrelated change. I just think it should be discussed. On 2017-08-30 07:01:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote: > > 1) Currently the default

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote: > 1) Currently the default for {min,max}_wal_size depends on the segment >size. Given that the segment size is about to be configurable, that >seems confusing. On the one hand, I agree that it seems confusing and unnecessary to vary this with the

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: > > >> So the

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: > >> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in > >> multiples of segment sizes or

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: >> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in >> multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning >> towards the latter. > >

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: > So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in > multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning > towards the latter. I'm not sure what the question is or what its impact would be. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than > >> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than >> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet. > > 1GB will be the limit anyway. Yeah, but

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in > > multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning > > towards the latter. > >

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in > multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning > towards the latter. Logically in the code it is just a matter of adjusting

[HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

Hi, intentionally breaking the thread here, I want this one point to get a bit wider audience. The excerpt of the relevant discussion is: On 2017-08-23 12:13:15 +0530, Beena Emerson wrote: > >> + /* set default max_wal_size and min_wal_size */ > >> + snprintf(repltok, sizeof(repltok),