| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(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 13:07:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv4i3kigqSVUgksG_buW9cPCcHS0tYG5oB4o19miyJew2A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 January 2014 13:01, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> 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?
>
> IIRC we discussed not keeping it at all when the autotune behavior was
> introduced, but said we wanted to keep it "just in case". If we're not ready
> to remove it, then does that just mean that we need to fix it so we can?
Robert Haas reported that setting it to 32MB can yield a considerable
performance benefit:
--
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-17 13:08:22 | Re: wal_buffers = -1 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-01-17 13:01:56 | wal_buffers = -1 |