Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 25 August 2016 at 02:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Furthermore, there is an enforced, synchronous fsync at the end of
>>> every segment, which actually does hurt performance on write-heavy
>>> workloads.[2] Of course, if that were the only reason to consider
>>> increasing the segment size, it would probably make more sense to just
>>> try to push that extra fsync into the background, but that's not
>>> really the case. From what I hear, the gigantic number of files is a
>>> bigger pain point.
>>
>> I think we should fully describe the problem before finding a solution.
>
> Sure, that's usually a good idea. I attempted to outline all of the
> possible issues of which I am aware in my original email, but of
> course you may know of considerations which I overlooked.
>
>> This is too big a change to just tweak a value without discussing the
>> actual issue.
>
> Again, I tried to make sure I was discussing the actual issues in my
> original email. In brief: having to run archive_command multiple
> times per second imposes very tight latency requirements on it;
> directories with hundreds of thousands or millions of files are hard
> to manage; enforced synchronous fsyncs at the end of each segment hurt
> performance.
>
>> And if the problem is as described, how can a change of x4 be enough
>> to make it worth the pain of change? I think you're already admitting
>> it can't be worth it by discussing initdb configuration.
>
> I guess it depends on how much pain of change you think there will be.
> I would expect a change from 16MB -> 64MB to be fairly painless, but
> (1) it might break tools that aren't designed to cope with differing
> segment sizes and (2) it will increase disk utilization for people who
> have such low velocity systems that they never end up with more than 2
> WAL segments, and now those segments are bigger. If you know of other
> impacts or have reason to believe those problems will be serious,
> please fill in the details.
>
> Despite the fact that initdb configuration has dominated this thread,
> I mentioned it only in the very last sentence of my email and only as
> a possibility. I believe that a 4x change will be good enough for the
> majority of people for whom this is currently a pain point. However,
> yes, I do believe that there are some people for whom it won't be
> sufficient. And I believe that as we continue to enhance PostgreSQL
> to support higher and higher transaction rates, the number of people
> who need an extra-large WAL segment size will increase. As I see it,
> there are three options here:
>
> 1. Do nothing. So far, I don't see anybody arguing for that.
>
> 2. Change the default to 64MB and call it good. This idea seems to
> have considerable support.
>
> 3. Allow initdb-time configurability but keep the default at 16MB. I
> don't see any support for this. There is clearly support for
> configurability, but I don't see anyone arguing that the current
> default is preferable, unless that is what you are arguing.
>
> 4. Change the default to 64MB and also allow initdb-time
> configurability. This option also appears to enjoy substantial
> support, perhaps more than #2. Magnus seemed to be arguing that this
> is preferable to #2, because then it's easier for people to change the
> setting back if someone discovers a case where the higher default is a
> problem; Tom, on the other hand, seems to think this is overkill.
>

If we change the default to 64MB, then I think it won't allow to use
old databases as-is because we store it in pg_control (I think one
will get below error [1] for old databases, if we just change default
and don't do anything else). Do you have way to address it or you
think it is okay?

[1] -
FATAL: database files are incompatible with server
DETAIL: The database cluster was initialized with XLOG_SEG_SIZE
16777216, but the server was compiled with XLOG_SEG_SIZE 67108864.
HINT: It looks like you need to recompile or initdb.
LOG: database system is shut down

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com