Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

On 2016-09-20 16:32:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Requiring a non-default compile time or even just cluster creation time
> > option for tuning isn't something worth expanding energy on imo.
>
> I don't agree. The latency requirements on an archive_command when
> you're churning out 16MB files multiple times per second are insanely
> tight, and saying that we shouldn't increase the size because it's
> better to go redesign a bunch of other things that will eventually
> *maybe* remove the need for archive_command does not seem like a
> reasonable response.

Oh, I'm on board with increasing the default size a bit. A different
default size isn't a non-default compile time option anymore though, and
I don't think 1GB is a reasonable default.

Running multiple archive_commands concurrently - pretty easy to
implement - isn't the same as removing the need for archive command. I'm
pretty sure that continously,and if necessary concurrently, archiving a
bunch of 64MB files is going to work better than irregularly
creating / transferring 1GB files.

Andres