On Wednesday 17 November 2010 00:31:34 Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@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
