| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2017-03-22 21:33:37 |
| Message-ID: | e92bf4b6-cd70-4000-a91b-bce3afc795d6@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/22/17 3:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/22/17 15:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If changing WAL sizes catches on, I do think we should keep thinking
>> about a new format for a future release,
>
> I think that means that I'm skeptical about changing the default size
> right now.
I think if we don't change the default size it's very unlikely I would
use alternate WAL segment sizes or recommend that anyone else does, at
least in v10.
I simply don't think it would get the level of testing required to be
production worthy and I doubt that most tool writers would be quick to
add support for a feature that very few people (if any) use.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2017-03-22 21:34:40 | Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-22 21:03:45 | Re: extended statistics: n-distinct |