On 2/5/15 4:53 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Actually, perhaps we should have a boolean setting that just implies >> min=max, instead of having a configurable minimum?. That would cover all >> of those reasons pretty well. So we would have a "max_wal_size" setting, >> and a boolean "preallocate_all_wal = on | off". Would anyone care for >> the flexibility of setting a minimum that's different from the maximum? > I do, actually. Here's the case I want it for: > > I have a web application which gets all of its new data as uncoordinated > batch updates from customers. Since it's possible for me to receive > several batch updates at once, I set max_wal_size to 16GB, roughtly the > side of 8 batch updates. But I don't want the WAL that big all the time > because it slows down backup snapshots. So I set min_wal_size to 2GB, > roughly the size of one batch update. > > That's an idiosyncratic case, but I can imagine more of them out there. > > I wouldn't be opposed to min_wal_size = -1 meaning "same as > max_wal_size" though.
+1 for min_wal_size. Like Josh, I can think of instances where this would be good. -- - David Steele da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature