| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Date: | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3579.1045192235@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024 wal_buffers
> as opposed to 8?
Waste of RAM? You'd be better off leaving that 8 meg available for use
as general-purpose buffers ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:16:04 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:05:04 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-14 03:11:05 | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:05:04 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:16:04 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:05:04 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |