> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
No comments:
Post a Comment