Re: wal_buffers = -1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: wal_buffers = -1
Date
Msg-id 20140117130822.GH30206@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to wal_buffers = -1  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2014-01-17 14:01:56 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there any real use-case for not setting wal_buffers to -1 these days?
> 
> Or should we just remove it and use the -1 behaviour at all times?

I have seen improvements by setting it larger than the max -1 one
value. Also, for some workloads (low latency) it can be beneficial to
have a small s_b but still have a larger wal_buffers setting.

So -1 for removing it from me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_buffers = -1
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_buffers = -1