On Wednesday 17 November 2010 00:31:34 Tom Lane wrote: > 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 Especially not as I don't think it will have any effect after wal_segment_size as that will force a write-out anyway. Or am I misremembering the implementation?
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
