Re: Remove secondary checkpoint

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove secondary checkpoint
Date: 2017-10-25 04:36:13
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSsiWaz2PSVURtsfsEfweMkoywfORyProsSyyTdXu6nYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> (3)
> Should we change the default value of max_wal_size from 1 GB to a smaller size? I vote for "no" for performance.

The default has just changed in v10, so changing it again could be
confusing, so I agree with your position.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2017-10-25 05:20:39 Re: unique index violation after pg_upgrade to PG10
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2017-10-25 02:24:11 Re: Remove secondary checkpoint