From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Date: | 2017-03-25 15:36:37 |
Message-ID: | 3da80f0f-dc39-286b-d772-080becea095a@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/24/17 19:13, David Steele wrote:
> Behavior for the current default of 16MB is unchanged, and all other
> sizes go through a logical progression.
Just at a glance, without analyzing the math behind it, this scheme
seems super confusing.
>
> 1GB:
> 000000010000000000000040
> 000000010000000000000080
> 0000000100000000000000C0
> 000000010000000100000000
>
> 256GB:
>
> 000000010000000000000010
> 000000010000000000000020
> 000000010000000000000030
> ...
> 0000000100000000000000E0
> 0000000100000000000000F0
> 000000010000000100000000
>
> 64GB:
>
> 000000010000000100000004
> 000000010000000100000008
> 00000001000000010000000C
> ...
> 0000000100000001000000F8
> 0000000100000001000000FC
> 000000010000000100000000
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-25 15:38:53 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-03-25 15:33:34 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |