Hi,
On 2015-03-03 11:04:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Attached is version D, which incorporates the above two changes, but NOT
> a general unit comment cleanup of postgresql.conf, which needs to be an
> entirely different patch.
Pushed!
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, if we were to change the server so that it *refused* settings that
> didn't have a unit, that argument would become moot. But I'm not going
> to defend the castle against the villagers who will show up if you do
> that.
That might be somethi
On 3/3/15 2:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/03/2015 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept
"MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of
this, but seem
On 03/03/2015 02:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/03/2015 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept
"MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of
this, but seems like (a) it should be universal, and (b
No intention to hijack. Dropping issue for now.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 10:58 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > Naive question: would it be /possible/ to change configuration to accept
> > percentages, and have a percent mean "of existing RAM at startup time
On 04/03/15 08:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept
"MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of
this, but seems like (a) it should be universal, and (b) its own patch.
Meh. Doing this strikes me as a
On 03/03/2015 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept
>> "MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of
>> this, but seems like (a) it should be universal, and (b) its own patch.
>
> Meh. Doing thi
Josh Berkus writes:
> Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept
> "MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of
> this, but seems like (a) it should be universal, and (b) its own patch.
Meh. Doing this strikes me as a serious documentation failure,
On 03/03/2015 10:58 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Naive question: would it be /possible/ to change configuration to accept
> percentages, and have a percent mean "of existing RAM at startup time"?
>
> I ask because most of the tuning guidelines I see suggest setting memory
> parameters as a % of RAM
On 03/03/2015 02:12 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 03/02/2015 03:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
! #max_wal_size = 1GB# in logfile segments
>>>
>>> Independe
Naive question: would it be /possible/ to change configuration to accept
percentages, and have a percent mean "of existing RAM at startup time"?
I ask because most of the tuning guidelines I see suggest setting memory
parameters as a % of RAM available.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Heikki Linn
On 03/03/2015 08:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/03/2015 10:29 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/03/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/03/2015 10:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/02/2015 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I propose that we remove the comment from max_wal_size, and also
On 03/03/2015 10:29 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 03/03/2015 10:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2015 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I propose that we remove the comment from max_wal_size, and also remove
the "in milliseconds"
On 03/03/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/03/2015 10:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/02/2015 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I propose that we remove the comment from max_wal_size, and also remove
the "in milliseconds" from wal_receiver_timeout and
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay.
+1
On 03/03/2015 10:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I propose that we remove the comment from max_wal_size, and also remove
>> the "in milliseconds" from wal_receiver_timeout and
>> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay.
>
> +1
>
Actually, let's be consistent
On 03/02/2015 11:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I propose that we remove the comment from max_wal_size, and also remove
> the "in milliseconds" from wal_receiver_timeout and
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay.
+1
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-ha
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 01:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>> ! #max_wal_size = 1GB # in logfile segments
>>
>>
>> Independent of the rest of the changes, the "in logfile seg
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 03:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> ! #max_wal_size = 1GB# in logfile segments
>>
>> Independent of the rest of the changes, the "in logfile segme
On 03/03/2015 01:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
! #max_wal_size = 1GB # in logfile segments
Independent of the rest of the changes, the "in logfile segments" bit
should probably be changed.
The "base unit" is still logfile segme
On 03/02/2015 03:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> ! #max_wal_size = 1GB# in logfile segments
>
> Independent of the rest of the changes, the "in logfile segments" bit
> should probably be changed.
Point! Although I
Hi,
On 2015-03-02 15:40:27 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> ! #max_wal_size = 1GB # in logfile segments
Independent of the rest of the changes, the "in logfile segments" bit
should probably be changed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQua
On 03/02/2015 03:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Attached.
>
> Per discussion on the thread "Redesigning checkpoint_segments" this
> raises the default for the new parameter "max_wal_size" to 1GB.
>
> Seems too small to add it to the CF, but if you want me to, I will.
Ooops, patch didn't include the
Attached.
Per discussion on the thread "Redesigning checkpoint_segments" this
raises the default for the new parameter "max_wal_size" to 1GB.
Seems too small to add it to the CF, but if you want me to, I will.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
diff --git a/src/backend/
23 matches
Mail list logo
