On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> > The one thing I'd be worried about with the increase in size is folks >> > using PostgreSQL for very small databases. If your database is only >> > 30MB or so in size, the increase in size of the WAL will be pretty >> > significant (+144MB for the base 3 WAL segments). I'm not sure this is >> > a real problem which users will notice (in today's scales, 144MB ain't >> > much), but if it turns out to be, it would be nice to have a way to >> > switch it back *just for them* without recompiling. >> >> I think you may be forgetting that "the base 3 WAL segments" is no >> longer the default configuration. checkpoint_segments=3 is history; >> we now have max_wal_size=1GB, which is a maximum of 64 WAL segments, >> not 3. > > I think the relevant one for that case is the minimum, though: > > #min_wal_size = 80MB > > which corresponds to 5 segments. I suppose the default value for this > minimum would change to some multiple of 64MB.
Yeah, Andres made the same point, although it looks like he erroneously stated that the minimum was 48MB whereas you have it as 80MB, which seems to be the actual value. I assume we would have to raise that to either 128MB or 192MB, which does feel like a bit of a hefty increase. It doesn't matter if you're going to make extensive use of the cluster, but if somebody's spinning up hundreds of clusters each of which has very little activity it might not be an altogether welcome change. -- 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
