MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Colin 't Hart" <colinthart@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:13:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMon-aQ8X7H7jCC6ggKm9Uzcu3KfGVC34RRqKt8BCfpDn2tq9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: wal segment size
To: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009256840646274a92"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMon-aQ8X7H7jCC6ggKm9Uzcu3KfGVC34RRqKt8BCfpDn2tq9A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000009256840646274a92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

I see very little advice on tuning WAL segment size.

One of my clients has a few datawarehouses at around 8 - 16 TB

On one of the nodes there are approx 15000 WAL segments of 16MB each,
totalling approx 230GB. The archiver is archiving approx one per second, so
approx 4 hours to clear.

Would we gain anything by bumping the WAL segment size?

Thanks,

Colin

--0000000000009256840646274a92
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>I see very little advice=
 on tuning WAL=C2=A0segment=C2=A0size.</div><div><br></div><div>One of my c=
lients has a few datawarehouses=C2=A0at around 8 - 16 TB</div><div><br></di=
v><div>On one of the nodes there are approx 15000 WAL segments of 16MB each=
, totalling approx 230GB. The archiver is archiving approx one per second, =
so approx 4 hours to clear.</div><div><br></div><div>Would=C2=A0we gain any=
thing by bumping the WAL=C2=A0segment size?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks=
,</div><div><br></div><div>Colin</div></div>

--0000000000009256840646274a92--