On 03/02/2015 05:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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.
That was the impression I had too, which was why I was surprised. The last post on the topic was one by Robert Haas, agreeing with me on a value of 1GB, and there were zero objections after that. -- 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
