From: | Ron Somaraju <RSomaraju(at)masergy(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How do you change the size of the WAL files? |
Date: | 2012-01-10 01:21:26 |
Message-ID: | 2389867A-56EF-42B4-BE2F-3D7078EEE33F@masergy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Once again, pros and cons should be left to users discretion because one may have latest and greatest hardware and network resources. For example a SSD on a fiber channel on a high speed network.
Regards,
rs
On Jan 9, 2012, at 7:06 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> There are tradeoffs in the other direction too, but if you feel you must
>>> have a different value, see configure's --with-wal-segsize option. Note
>>> that you cannot change this without re-initdb.
>
>> Is there a limit to the max size?
>
> Hmm, it looks like the configure script only allows 1-64MB. I'm not
> sure offhand if that's protecting a restriction elsewhere, or just
> not bothering to extend the switch for more cases. Keep in mind that
> the larger you make this, the more data you can lose because it wasn't
> archived yet when your master machine failed.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Figueiredo Jr. | 2012-01-10 02:03:49 | Re: Is there a reason why Postgres doesn't have Byte or tinyint? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-10 01:06:43 | Re: How do you change the size of the WAL files? |