Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B622632805 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:05:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31461-01 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:05:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E1D632636 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:05:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NupZ5-0004Wt-9V; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:05:47 +0000 Received: from tor-gateway.afilias.info ([199.15.87.4] helo=[10.10.46.12]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NupZ5-0001t7-91; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:05:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB From: Brad Nicholson To: Tadipathri Raghu Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com> References: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:05:47 -0400 Message-Id: <1269533147.5155.41.camel@bnicholson-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.74 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/319 X-Sequence-Number: 38144 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.