On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> That's certainly better, but I think we should go further. Again, >> you're not committed to using this space all the time, and if you are >> using it you must have a lot of write activity, which means you are >> not running on a tin can and a string. If you have a little tiny >> database, say 100MB, running on a little-tiny Amazon instance, >> handling a small number of transactions, you're going to stay close to >> wal_min_size anyway. Right? > > Well, we can test that. > > So what's your proposed size?
I previously proposed 100 segments, or 1.6GB. If that seems too large, how about 64 segments, or 1.024GB? I think there will be few people who can't tolerate a gigabyte of xlog under peak load, and an awful lot who will benefit from it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: 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
