Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-15 17:26:11
Message-ID: 20131015172611.GO5300@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-10-15 10:19:06 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 05:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > But the argument about being friendly for new users should definitely
> > have us change wal_level and max_wal_senders.
>
> +1 for having replication supported out-of-the-box aside from pg_hba.conf.
>
> To put it another way: users are more likely to care about replication
> than they are about IO overhead on a non-replicated server. And for the
> users who care about IO overhead, they are more likely to much about in
> pg.conf *anyway* in order to set a slew of performance-tuning settings.

But it will hurt people restoring backups using pg_restore -j. I think
people might be rather dissapointed if that slows down by a factor of
three.

I think we really need to get to the point where we increase the wal
level ondemand...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-10-15 17:29:34 Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-10-15 17:19:17 Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE