Re: wal_buffers = -1

On 17 January 2014 13:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 January 2014 13:01, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> > Is there any real use-case for not setting wal_buffers to -1 these days?
>> >
>> > Or should we just remove it and use the -1 behaviour at all times?
>> >
>> > IIRC we discussed not keeping it at all when the autotune behavior was
>> > introduced, but said we wanted to keep it "just in case". If we're not
>> > ready
>> > to remove it, then does that just mean that we need to fix it so we can?
>>
>> Robert Haas reported that setting it to 32MB can yield a considerable
>> performance benefit:
>>
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobgMv_aaakLoasBt=5iYfi=kdcOUz0X9TdYe0c2SZ=2Pg@mail.gmail.com
>
>
> In that case, sholdn't the autotuning be changed to not limit it at 16MB? :)

Well, that's the question. Do we have a heuristic sweet-spot that
folk would agree on?

--
Thom