| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-11 06:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | 484F7613.5070202@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Oh, and wal_buffers, the default for which we should just change if it
>> weren't for SHMMAX.
>
> Uh, why? On a workload of mostly small transactions, what value is
> there in lots of wal_buffers?
None. But there's also little to no harm in having a higher setting; at
worst you waste a few megabytes of memory. Besides, most databases are
initialized from some outside source in the beginning, and data loading
does benefit from a higher wal_buffers setting.
Ideally, of course, there would be no wal_buffers setting, and WAL
buffers would be allocated from shared_buffers pool on demand...
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2008-06-11 07:02:41 | Re: Runtime checking of MCV (Was: ... histogram bucket numdistinct statistics) |
| Previous Message | billy | 2008-06-11 04:57:15 | Re: why copy tuple in the end of trigger when nothing changed in NEW OLD record variable |