Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: 2011-01-16 17:32:30
Message-ID: 9303.1295199150@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I think we can be more specific on that last sentence; is there even any
> *theoretical* benefit to settings above 16MB, the size of a WAL segment?

IIRC there's a forced fsync at WAL segment switch, so no.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-01-16 17:45:02 Re: textarray option for file FDW
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-16 17:28:42 Re: LOCK for non-tables