From: Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info>
To: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu.dba@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:05:47 -0400
Message-ID: <1269533147.5155.41.camel@bnicholson-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 20:31 +0530, Tadipathri Raghu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can anybody clarify on this, why wal_buffer is 64kb and what is
> advantages and disadvantages in increasing or decreasing the
> wal_buffer.
This is addressed in the documentation.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/wal-configuration.html
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: bnichols@ca.afilias.info, traghu.dba@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
In-Reply-To: <1269533147.5155.41.camel@bnicholson-desktop>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox