* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > > On 02/26/2015 01:32 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> But ... I thought we were going to raise the default for max_wal_size to > >> something much higher, like 1GB? That's what was discussed on this > >> thread. > > > > No conclusion was reached on that. Me and some others were against raising > > the default, while others were for it. > > I guess that's a fair summary of the discussion, but I still think > it's the wrong conclusion. Right now, you can't get reasonable write > performance with PostgreSQL even on tiny databases (a few GB) without > increasing that setting by an order of magnitude. It seems an awful > shame to go to all the work to mitigate the downsides of setting a > large checkpoint_segments and then still ship a tiny default setting. > I've got to believe that the number of people who think 128MB of WAL > is tolerable but 512MB or 1GB is excessive is almost nobody. Disk > sizes these days are measured in TB.
+1. I thought the conclusion had actually been in favor of the change,
though there had been voices for and against.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
