Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote: > On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:14:35 -0400 Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Not seen any gains from varying the WAL file size since then... > > > > I think the use-case for varying the WAL segment size is unrelated to > > performance of the master server, but would instead be concerned with > > adjusting the granularity of WAL log shipping. > > *nod* I heard this argument several times. Simon: there was a discussion > about this topic in Prato last year. Since WAL logfiles are usually > binary stuff, the files can't be compressed much so a smaller logfile > size on a not-so-much-used system would save a noticeable amount of > bandwith (and cpu cycles for compression).
Seems the stuff to zero out the unused segment tail would be more useful here. Kevin sent me the source file some time ago -- he didn't want to upload them to pgfoundry because he was missing a Makefile. I built one for him, but last time I looked he hadn't uploaded anything. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
