From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: docs should mention that max_wal_size default depends on WAL segment size |
Date: | 2018-11-18 21:22:22 |
Message-ID: | 20181118212222.kwak7vc4vbqab3lx@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-11-18 22:16:12 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> while investigating something on a cluster with a non-default WAL
> segment (say 256MB), I've noticed a somewhat surprising behavior of
> max_wal_size default. While the docs claim the default is 1GB, the
> actual default depends on the WAL segment size.
>
> For example with the 256MB WAL segments, you end up with this:
>
> test=# show max_wal_size ;
> max_wal_size
> --------------
> 16GB
> (1 row)
>
> This behavior is not entirely new - I've noticed it on 10, before the
> WAL segment size was moved to initdb (which made it more likely to be
> used). It's even more surprising there, because it leaves
>
> #max_wal_size = 1GB
>
> in the sample config, while fc49e24f at least emits the actual value.
>
> But I'd say not mentioning this behavior in the docs is a bug.
Hm, you're not wrong there. Wonder if it'd be better to make it so that
the default actually has the effect of being 1GB - I think that ought to
be doable?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-18 21:43:59 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-18 21:20:37 | Re: Fixing AC_CHECK_DECLS to do the right thing with clang |