Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 02/02/2015 04:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2015-02-02 08:36:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Also, I'd like to propose that we set the default value of >>> max_checkpoint_segments/checkpoint_wal_size to something at >>> least an order of magnitude larger than the current default >>> setting. >> >> +1 > > I don't agree with that principle. I wouldn't mind increasing it > a little bit, but not by an order of magnitude.
Especially without either confirming that this effect is no longer present, or having an explanation for it: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4A44E58C0200002500027FCF@gw. wicourts.gov Note that Greg Smith found the same effect on a machine without any write caching, which shoots down my theory, at least on his machine: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4bccdad5.3040...@2ndquadrant.com#4bccdad5.3040...@2ndquadrant.com -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers