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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)
Date: 2017-08-30 01:16:09
Message-ID: 20170830011609.3dk67tixa4ryq3io@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> 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 imagine that we'd want to raise that even more up.

I'm doubtfull of that. But even if, it'd not be hard to GUC support.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-08-30 01:44:54 Re: Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-08-30 01:14:22 Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)