Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

>
>> But I wonder if initdb.c, when selecting the default shared_buffers,
>> shouldn't test with wal_buffers = shared_buffers/64 or
>> shared_buffers/128, with a lower limit of 8 blocks, and set that as
>> the default.
>
> We talked about bumping it to 512kB or 1MB for 9.1. Did that get in?
> Do I need to write that patch?
>
> It would be nice to have it default to 16MB out of the gate, but there
> we're up against the Linux/FreeBSD SysV memory limits again. When are
> those OSes going to modernize?
>

Why wait? Just set it to 1MB, and individual distributions can set it lower if need be (for example Mac OSX with its 4MB default shared memory limit). Bowing to lowest common denominator OS settings causes more problems than it solves IMO.

> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance