Re: wal_buffers

On 02/19/2012 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we might want to consider
> adjusting our auto-tuning formula for wal_buffers to allow for a
> higher cap, although this is obviously not enough data to draw any
> firm conclusions.

That's an easy enough idea to throw into my testing queue.  The 16MB 
auto-tuning upper bound was just the easiest number to suggest that was 
obviously useful and unlikely to be wasteful.  One of the reasons 
wal_buffers remains a user-visible parameter was that no one every 
really did an analysis at what its useful upper bound was--and that 
number might move up as other bottlenecks are smashed too.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com