From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
To: Tadipathri Raghu <traghu.dba@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:15:58 -0400
Message-ID: <3073cc9b1003251015x590e962ata59dadbb58b42ce5@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <645d9d71003250801o246439a0j93c7b568786e98de@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Tadipathri Raghu <traghu.dba@gmail.com> 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.
>
is 64kb just because by default we have low values in almost everything :)
and the advantages is that if your average transaction is more than
64kb large all wal data will be in memory until commit, actually i
thing it should be large enough to accomodate more than one
transaction but i'm not sure about that one... i usually use 1Mb for
OLTP systems
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
AsesorÃa y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
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: jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec, traghu.dba@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why Wal_buffer is 64KB
In-Reply-To: <3073cc9b1003251015x590e962ata59dadbb58b42ce5@mail.gmail.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