Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
>> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
>> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
>> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
>> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
> We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes, but we could
very probably increase it by a factor of 10 or so without anyone
squawking. It's been awhile since I heard of anyone trying to run PG in
4MB shmmax. How much would a change of that size help?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
