| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-02-05 14:42:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=1tHWUENHjbVzsj14HfCnRFO2K1k9PuHGFe=od1TffQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, we can test that.
>
> So what's your proposed size?
I previously proposed 100 segments, or 1.6GB. If that seems too
large, how about 64 segments, or 1.024GB? I think there will be few
people who can't tolerate a gigabyte of xlog under peak load, and an
awful lot who will benefit from it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-05 14:45:50 | Simplify sleeping while reading/writing from client |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2015-02-05 14:17:13 | Re: Unlikely-to-happen crash in ecpg driver caused by NULL-pointer check not done |