Hello, On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson <memissemer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see various issues raised but not properly addressed > > 1. we would need to drop support for segment sizes < 16MB unless we > adopt a new incompatible filename format. > I think at 16MB the naming should be the same as now and that > WALfilename -> LSN is very important. > For this release, I think we should just allow >= 16MB and avoid the > issue thru lack of time. > > 2. It's not clear to me the advantage of being able to pick varying > filesizes. I see great disadvantage in having too many options, which > greatly increases the chance of incompatibility, annoyance and > breakage. I favour a small number of values that have been shown by > testing to be sweet spots in performance and usability. (1GB has been > suggested) > Does the options 16, 64 and 1024 seem good. We can remove sizes below 16 as most have agreed and as per the discussion, 64MB and 1GB seems favoured. We could probably allow 32MB since it was an already allowed size? > 3. New file allocation has been a problem raised with this patch for > some months now. > This did not seem to be an open issue, at least there was not many disagreements. Higher the server load, more WAL generated. For the same load, the frequency of file allocation reduces for higher wal-segsize values. Overall it is either filling up many files or few larger files. -- Beena Emerson EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
