| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
| Date: | 2023-05-09 04:17:25 |
| Message-ID: | ZFnJVcaEi/7t2U8H@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:34:56AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Below is the configuration I've been using. I have been keeping the
> checkpoints away so far to get expected numbers. Probably, something
> that I should modify for this long run? Change checkpoint_timeout to
> 15 min or so?
>
> max_wal_size=64GB
> checkpoint_timeout=1d
> shared_buffers=8GB
> max_connections=5000
Noted. Something like that should be OK IMO, with all the checkpoints
generated based on the volume generated. With records that have a
fixed size, this should, I assume, lead to results that could be
compared across runs, even if the patched code would lead to more
checkpoints generated.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-05-09 04:51:05 | RE: Subscription statistics are not dropped at DROP SUBSCRIPTION in some cases |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-05-09 04:04:56 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |