On 9/10/21, 10:12 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If on the other hand you imagine a system that's not very busy, say 1 > WAL file being archived every 10 seconds, then using a batch size of > 30 would very significantly delay removal of old files. However, on > this system, batching probably isn't really needed. The rate of WAL > file generation is low enough that if you pay the startup cost of your > archive_command for every file, you're probably still doing just fine. > > Probably, any kind of parallelism or batching needs to take this kind > of time-based thinking into account. For batching, the rate at which > files are generated should affect the batch size. For parallelism, it > should affect the number of processes used.
I was thinking that archive_batch_size would be the maximum batch size. If the archiver only finds a single file to archive, that's all it'd send to the archive command. If it finds more, it'd send up to archive_batch_size to the command. Nathan
