| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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 15:35:19 |
| Message-ID: | cd3ce081-0935-3767-dcf2-0bfe0a86e4da@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/6/17 07:13, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Does the options 16, 64 and 1024 seem good.
> We can remove sizes below 16 as most have agreed and as per the
> discussion, 64MB and 1GB seems favoured. We could probably allow 32MB
> since it was an already allowed size?
I don't see the need to remove any options right now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-04-06 15:40:10 | Re: Uninitialized variable introduced in 3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-06 15:33:16 | Re: Uninitialized variable introduced in 3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b |