Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vVtRs-009UdX-22 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:28:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vVtRr-00DnQW-22 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:28:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vVtRr-00DnQN-0x for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:28:20 +0000 Received: from mail-oa1-x2d.google.com ([2001:4860:4864:20::2d]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vVtRp-001FYY-2Z for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:28:19 +0000 Received: by mail-oa1-x2d.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f4f9ea26aaso4422717fac.0 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 07:28:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1765985291; x=1766590091; darn=postgresql.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+TU3AOmm+yY50YdYpldD+eyGb5IZhdKGjuFIVUI5g0Y=; b=bEuCL/FYFg1ZNh84eWGOtOZDiUCEDgH9dSNNqq1cFkU+jgObuXaBSGtbg358+RzbV0 54/H1JlQlihg1OfjNgQ0spM3eCG9aFymOy4zYT3/w0VDhC2b1fJFeA1b9qUirGedAYaB Lk+zvlS19kE5K4H9n5CWTRFTxh5+YAHn0cbHS2ZeD0AD6SmiroKMLG7Du6lOlycKz396 1A3c90Em4PkJnYslUbNhlqoZ32sm++OSgiS62y4L4Pvg6sXoyB96kd31GuwXUAuiQQge KeKuwiILYxgYxESGO6Tl0VlAQy2milsfKNnlqncbhaCPVb55GLznKhJYXL4Cg5BNQAgS zz7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1765985291; x=1766590091; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=+TU3AOmm+yY50YdYpldD+eyGb5IZhdKGjuFIVUI5g0Y=; b=qrmgzRjPCFbEsvnSgmwRkB7CIsUMe9UB8bUov18qeDDBMIwBX6x21yJLXpOLWoLuce 7824OFX0S79ey8KIUd3TSz4JXQKigKqlztBvW45yLvELCDIaFTOFFjaettR48ylco6Ta JnErZkWeD++3Y7ya8E+9liDEh99fXQShBpgQk4tqzEZXSgYvgGQqbDpM16Ngk9f3M9Pd YS9L2OBaFifGOEPEjqd/KK8uWL5EBtP0c9/DHQ4a3nkWbUOmlpPu/N+CRglqbc1PQ9qE 1cJGnUo71jiqaAj9kwsbpwMaJPOMFwrftfk7Ms9fy3l+G/Atz+MEU4CyQ+wr20ifE1GF aqwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw1UjvTYnCZTNEaxuZOYEgTvBvxBbw9TplzwTdl3OfsIbdnsFJA 75R3LauxAZDRGV2KvH8zHIb3fuK5oeZ0Ib0SU/XZkC/be5B6DiNOWkez9uXX9Dwf3mWmB46E59y pQbqtqpg4jrpCY2Gl1XRb9+ktm8tG/cFhHg== X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX40C3MMKaxfuH5jEutnIcS350yXpztcl6m3fLEExaw2WDzRjgi71/puYvFxksc rQrAyjHq53PV9eGNmhD6qras0yC/lygo0CU1XyfohfZmorJeZskPzi1Zv3m5OqOfrx8Qry+yM+2 Eqh09k3S+uz1uxsJ216KP4/9fgheMld5R2/0i/CT8zZYuKLT+8dNVUavcBQCYYEXeNmrsGnkaUs VGmGJxvlvOcFdJBwnJU02+lCY7B+UjRmL4NZAJJu1FyStc+SO57bI5IVSi+mrETLRVSMVrBeeYE RyOR83k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZvkA765+x5HtEtgRa1SqlVPf5agLN/rZDW8XypBXRzqLTspT3mzgW1ZN6+B6c4gYD8fyd0Lzflzt8UpHTX7s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9192:b0:329:7f93:2b6 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f5f88ecb9amr7441768fac.29.1765985291177; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 07:28:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ron Johnson Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:28:00 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2qsW6DvoeUSp2t0FITvcbbaHmKmp1LYnCtaZps7JPNIFuFhSG11RxBA9sc Message-ID: Subject: Re: wal segment size To: pgsql-general Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f594930646277da2" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000f594930646277da2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:13=E2=80=AFAM Colin 't Hart wrote: > 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. > One second to archive 16 measly MB seems really darned slow. Another vote to *that* problem. --=20 Death to , and butter sauce. Don't boil me, I'm still alive. lobster! --000000000000f594930646277da2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:13=E2=80=AFAM = Colin 't Hart <colinthart@gm= ail.com> wrote:
H= i,

I see very little advice on tuning WAL=C2=A0seg= ment=C2=A0size.

One of my clients has a few datawa= rehouses=C2=A0at around 8 - 16 TB

On one of the no= des there are approx 15000 WAL segments of 16MB each, totalling approx 230G= B. The archiver is archiving approx one per second, so approx 4 hours to cl= ear.
=C2=A0
One second to arch= ive 16 measly MB seems really darned slow.=C2=A0 Another vote to that=C2=A0problem.

= --
D= eath to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm = still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
=
--000000000000f594930646277da2--