| From: | Ian Westmacott <ianw(at)intellivid(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wal_buffers |
| Date: | 2005-10-06 12:56:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1128603390.18319.16.camel@spectre.intellivid.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 02:39, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> The WAL Configuration chapter (25.2) has a pretty good discussion of
> how wal_buffers is used:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/wal-configuration.html
>
> You might also take a look at Josh Berkus' recent testing on this
> setting:
>
> http://www.powerpostgresql.com/
Thanks; I'd seen the documentation, but not Josh Berkus'
testing.
For my part, I don't have a large number of concurrent
connections, only one. But it is doing large writes,
and XLogInsert is number 2 on the profile (with
LWLockAcquire and LWLockRelease close behind). I suppose
that is expected, but lead by the documentation I wanted
to make sure XLogInsert always had some buffer space to
play with.
--Ian
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kelly Burkhart | 2005-10-06 13:17:54 | functions and execution plan caching |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-10-06 10:44:00 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |