>>> 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.
Good point. OK, 4 works for me. -- 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
