Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-01-18T11:50:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Fujii Masao wrote: > +/* Minimum setting used for a lower bound on wal_buffers */ > +#define XLOG_BUFFER_MIN 4 > > Why didn't you use XLOG_BUFFER_MIN instead of XLOGbuffersMin? > XLOG_BUFFER_MIN is not used anywhere for now. > That's a typo; will fix. > + if (XLOGbuffers < (XLOGbuffersMin * 2)) > + XLOGbuffers = XLOGbuffersMin * 2; > + } > > Why is the minimum value 64kB only when wal_buffers is set to > -1? This seems confusing for users. > That's because the current default on older versions is 64kB. Since the automatic selection is going to be the new default, I hope, I don't want it to be possible it will pick a number smaller than the default of older versions. So the automatic lower limit is 64kB, while the actual manually set lower limit remains 32kB, as before. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books