On 02/05/2015 01:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Except that, when setting up servers for customers, one thing I pretty >> much always do for them is temporarily increase checkpoint_segments for >> the initial data load. So having Postgres do this automatically would >> be a feature, not a bug. > > Right! > >> I say we go with ~~ 1GB. That's an 8X increase over current default >> size for the maximum > > Sounds great. > >> Default of 4 for min_wal_size? > > I assume you mean 4 segments; why not 3 as currently? As long as the > system has the latitude to ratchet it up when needed, there seems to > be little advantage to raising the minimum. Of course I guess there > must be some advantage or Heikki wouldn't have made it configurable, > but I'd err on the side of keeping this one small. Hopefully the > system that automatically adjusts this is really smart, and a large > min_wal_size is superfluous for most people.
Keep in mind that the current is actually 7, not three (3*2+1). So 3 would be a siginficant decrease. However, I don't feel strongly about it either way. I think that there is probably a minimum reasonable value > 1, but I'm not sure what it is. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers