On 28 June 2012 19:25, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Is anyone aware of a non-zero commit_delay in the wild today? I >> personally am not. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2011-11/msg00083.php
In that thread, Robert goes on to say to the OP that has set commit_delay: >On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think 1 second can be such a big difference for the bgwriter, >> but I might be wrong. > > Well, the default value is 200 ms. And I've never before heard of > anyone tuning it up, except maybe to save on power consumption on a > system with very low utilization. Nearly always you want to reduce > it. > >> The wal_writer makes me doubt, though. If logged activity was higher >> than 8MB/s, then that setting would block it all. >> I guess I really should lower it. > > Here again, you've set it to ten times the default value. That > doesn't seem like a good idea. I would start with the default and > tune down. So, let me rephrase my question: Is anyone aware of a non-zero commit_delay in the wild today with sensible reasoning behind it? -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
