On 02/19/2012 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think we might want to consider adjusting our auto-tuning formula for wal_buffers to allow for a higher cap, although this is obviously not enough data to draw any firm conclusions.
That's an easy enough idea to throw into my testing queue. The 16MB auto-tuning upper bound was just the easiest number to suggest that was obviously useful and unlikely to be wasteful. One of the reasons wal_buffers remains a user-visible parameter was that no one every really did an analysis at what its useful upper bound was--and that number might move up as other bottlenecks are smashed too.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
