| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-02-05 21:52:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ8FO9fGMN36-LVGEUcZyMVhnnt6sW=rPDqGf4j56g4FA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually, perhaps we should have a boolean setting that just implies
> min=max, instead of having a configurable minimum?. That would cover all of
> those reasons pretty well. So we would have a "max_wal_size" setting, and a
> boolean "preallocate_all_wal = on | off". Would anyone care for the
> flexibility of setting a minimum that's different from the maximum?
I like the way you have it now better. If we knew for certain that
there were no advantage in configuring a value between 0 and the
maximum, that would be one thing, but we don't and can't know that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-05 21:52:55 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-05 21:42:49 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |