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: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 04:45:55
Message-ID: 20170830044555.2efpuuux7acmn7yu@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> 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.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the question is or what its impact would be.
>
> FWIW, I get the question as: do we want the in-memory values of
> min/max_wal_size to be calculated in MB (which is now the case) or
> just bytes. Andres tends for using bytes.

Not quite. There's essentially two things:

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.
2) Currently wal_segment_size is measured in GUC_UNIT_XBLOCKS, which
requires us to keep two copies of the underlying variable, one in
XBLOCKS one in bytes. I'd rather just have the byte variant.

Regards,

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2017-08-30 06:32:19 Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-08-30 03:56:05 Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification