From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Discourage splitting pg_wal directory |
Date: | 2024-03-18 15:58:03 |
Message-ID: | 54e3551994accbe9cf73916b88e2e85dddadd804.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 11:32 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> "It is advantageous if the WAL is located on a different disk from the
> main database files. This can be achieved by moving the pg_wal directory
> to another location (while the server is shut down, of course) and
> creating a symbolic link from the original location in the main data
> directory to the new location."
>
> This is not as important as it used to be, and I would even hazard to
> say that we should not be encouraging it. There are still use cases for
> doing so, yes, but "advantageous" is too much. I played with some wording,
> but at the end of the day, I am thinking that we simply remove this
> paragraph entirely.
I think it is still a good idea to put data files and WAL on different file
systems. Perhaps not so much with the intention of distributing I/O across
different disks, but to prevent the data files from filling the WAL disk.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-03-18 16:01:32 | Re: Duplicates being removed from intarray on subtraction of another intarray |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2024-03-18 15:32:19 | Discourage splitting pg_wal directory |