Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 19:45:16 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K
Message-ID: <ZSSQjIYdjFxw_dp9@momjian.us>
References: <20231009230805.funj5ipoggjyzjz6@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <ZSSMPjkpsxURzWsI@momjian.us>
 <20231009233620.vkj3g6mxk3czg27g@awork3.anarazel.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231009233620.vkj3g6mxk3czg27g@awork3.anarazel.de>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZSSQjIYdjFxw_dp9%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct  9, 2023 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2023-10-09 19:26:54 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct  9, 2023 at 04:08:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > There's an alternative approach we could take, which is to write in 4KB
> > > increments, while keeping 8KB pages. With the current format that's not
> > > obviously a bad idea. But given there aren't really advantages in 8KB WAL
> > > pages, it seems we should just go for 4KB?
> > 
> > How do we handle shorter maximum row lengths and shorter maximum index
> > entry lengths?
> 
> The WAL blocksize shouldn't influence either, unless we have a bug somewhere.

Oh, good point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.