Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments

On 2/4/15 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hmmm, I see your point. I spend a lot of time on AWS and in
>> container-world, where disk space is a lot more constrained. However,
>> it probably makes more sense to recommend non-default settings for that
>> environment, since it requires non-default settings anyway.
>>
>> So, 384MB?
> That's certainly better, but I think we should go further. Again,
> you're not committed to using this space all the time, and if you are
> using it you must have a lot of write activity, which means you are
> not running on a tin can and a string. If you have a little tiny
> database, say 100MB, running on a little-tiny Amazon instance,
> handling a small number of transactions, you're going to stay close to
> wal_min_size anyway. Right?

The main exception I can think of is when using dump/restore to upgrade
instead of pg_upgrade. This would generate a lot of WAL for what could
otherwise be a low-traffic database.

--
- David Steele
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net