Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

From: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Date: 2017-04-06 11:58:25
Message-ID: CAOG9ApHhdgauqAkTfDLrBG+ZXKdqZPLMEHySxWctC+=1UfoDDQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:e format and expand the range?
>
>
> I don't think me saying it felt a bit slow around 256 MB is a proper
> technical analysis that should lead to the conclusion that that upper
> limit should be 128 MB. ;-)
>

I ran a couple of tests for 16MB and 1GB and found less than 4% performance
dip. I am currently running test to check consistency of the results and
for various sizes. I will update soon.

--

Beena Emerson

EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-04-06 12:06:38 Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-04-06 11:56:34 Re: Logical decoding on standby