| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level |
| Date: | 2022-07-15 14:33:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaYouqRcU3j8Pjr_5Zm76AQHO72a-w7mjk+n9HzWAQ54Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:27 AM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > + servers. If setting <varname>max_wal_senders</varname> to
> > + <literal>0</literal> consider also reducing the amount of WAL
> produced
> > + by changing <varname>wal_level</varname> to
> <literal>minimal</literal>.
> >
> > I don't think this is great advice. It will encourage people to use
> > wal_level = minimal even if they have other requirements that weigh
> > against it. If they feel that their system is producing too much
> > WAL, I doubt they'll have a hard time finding the wal_level knob.
> >
>
> Agreed. It isn't good advice. We can remove the suggestion.
>
>
Yeah, I wrote that thinking that max_wal_senders being set to 0 implied
archive_mode = off, but that isn't the case.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-07-15 14:36:20 | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Previous Message | Zhenghua Lyu | 2022-07-15 14:06:54 | Adjust ndistinct for eqjoinsel |