Re: wal_buffers

On 02/19/2012 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we might want to consider
> adjusting our auto-tuning formula for wal_buffers to allow for a
> higher cap, although this is obviously not enough data to draw any
> firm conclusions.

That's an easy enough idea to throw into my testing queue. The 16MB
auto-tuning upper bound was just the easiest number to suggest that was
obviously useful and unlikely to be wasteful. One of the reasons
wal_buffers remains a user-visible parameter was that no one every
really did an analysis at what its useful upper bound was--and that
number might move up as other bottlenecks are smashed too.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com