From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com>
Cc: Thomas F. O'Connell <tfo@sitening.com>
Subject: Re: wal_buffers
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:51:36 -0700
Message-ID: <200510071151.36959.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1128603390.18319.16.camel@spectre.intellivid.com>
References: <1128518624.15795.28.camel@spectre.intellivid.com>
<C140F925-0D7D-41B4-873A-6C81C0D3D307@sitening.com>
<1128603390.18319.16.camel@spectre.intellivid.com>
Ian, Thomas,
> Thanks; I'd seen the documentation, but not Josh Berkus'
> testing.
BTW, that's still an open question for me. I'm now theorizing that it's
best to set wal_buffers to the expected maximum number of concurrent write
connections. However, I don't have enough test systems to test that
meaningfully.
Your test results will help.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
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: josh@agliodbs.com, ianw@intellivid.com, tfo@sitening.com
Subject: Re: wal_buffers
In-Reply-To: <200510071151.36959.josh@agliodbs.com>
* 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