Re: wal_buffers = -1

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?
:)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/