| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_buffers = -1 |
| Date: | 2014-01-17 13:08:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20140117130822.GH30206@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2014-01-17 14:01:56 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there any real use-case for not setting wal_buffers to -1 these days?
>
> Or should we just remove it and use the -1 behaviour at all times?
I have seen improvements by setting it larger than the max -1 one
value. Also, for some workloads (low latency) it can be beneficial to
have a small s_b but still have a larger wal_buffers setting.
So -1 for removing it from me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-01-17 13:20:34 | Re: wal_buffers = -1 |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2014-01-17 13:07:12 | Re: wal_buffers = -1 |