From: | Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s? |
Date: | 2014-02-02 06:49:55 |
Message-ID: | CAFvQSYS+x2RG0=t2zyjsBTrGG09spGrimqDcMBv7BQm010wNwA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
> What Postgres version? The WAL Writer will hibernate on Postgres 9.2+.
> walwriter.c says:
I am using Postgresql-9.1 shipped with Raspbian (debian for raspberry pi).
> /*
> * Number of do-nothing loops before lengthening the delay time, and the
> * multiplier to apply to WalWriterDelay when we do decide to hibernate.
> * (Perhaps these need to be configurable?)
> */
> #define LOOPS_UNTIL_HIBERNATE 50
> #define HIBERNATE_FACTOR 25
In my case there will always be work at a higher frequency as the
delay time - in the hope to write out multiple transactions with a
single fsync, so the do-nothing case will most likely not happen.
My question on the list was merely to make sure there are no
side-effects when increasing this delay above what seems to be
considered safe limits. However, I still wonder why this parameter is
capped to 10s and whether this restriction could be lifted in future
postgresql versions?
Thanks & regards, Clemens
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-02 07:32:22 | Re: Why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s? |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2014-02-02 06:24:03 | Re: Transparent exchange BDE from Oracle to PostgreSQL |