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
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 |