Horton
Menu

Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat.sahu@enterprisedb.com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-04-05T11:29:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> No commitment yet to increasing wal-segsize in the way this patch has
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What part of patch you don't like and do you have any suggestions to
>> > improve the same?
>>
>> I think there are still some questions and disagreements about how it
>> should behave.
>
>
> The  WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is
> there anything else I have missed?

I see various issues raised but not properly addressed

1. we would need to drop support for segment sizes < 16MB unless we
adopt a new incompatible filename format.
I think at 16MB the naming should be the same as now and that
WALfilename -> LSN is very important.
For this release, I think we should just allow >= 16MB and avoid the
issue thru lack of time.

2. It's not clear to me the advantage of being able to pick varying
filesizes. I see great disadvantage in having too many options, which
greatly increases the chance of incompatibility, annoyance and
breakage. I favour a small number of values that have been shown by
testing to be sweet spots in performance and usability. (1GB has been
suggested)

3. New file allocation has been a problem raised with this patch for
some months now.

Lack of clarity and/or movement on these issues is very, very close to
getting the patch rejected now. Let's not approach this with the
viewpoint that I or others want it to be rejected, lets work forwards
and get some solid changes that will improve the world without causing
problems.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Make WAL segment size configurable at initdb time.

  2. Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

  3. Introduce BYTES unit for GUCs.

  4. Remove useless duplicate inclusions of system header files.

  5. Refactor other replication commands to use DestRemoteSimple.

  6. Add a SHOW command to the replication command language.

  7. Add a new DestReceiver for printing tuples without catalog access.

  8. Support fls().

  9. Extend yesterday's patch making BLCKSZ and RELSEG_SIZE configurable to also

  10. Commit the reasonably uncontroversial parts of J.R. Nield's PITR patch, to

  11. XLOG (also known as WAL -:)) Bootstrap/Startup/Shutdown.

  12. Transaction log manager core code.