Re: increasing the default WAL segment size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Date
Msg-id 20160826003715.GG4028@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: increasing the default WAL segment size  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael,

* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:40:06PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >> > time instead of requiring a recompile; we probably don't save any
> >> > significant number of cycles by compiling this into the server.
> >>
> >> FWIW, +1
> >>
> >> We're already hurt by the small segments due to a similar phenomenon
> >> as the ssh case: TCP slow start. Designing the archive/recovery
> >> command to work around TCP slow start is quite complex, and bigger
> >> segments would just be a better thing.
> >>
> >> Not to mention that bigger segments compress better.
> >
> > This would be good time to rename pg_xlog and pg_clog directories too.
>
> That would be an excellent timing to do so. The first CF is close by,
> and such a change would be better at the beginning of the  development
> cycle.

If we're going to be renaming things, we might wish to consider further
changes, such as putting everything that's temporary & not WAL-logged
into "pgsql_tmp" directories, so we don't need lists of "directories to
exclude" in things like the pg_basebackup-related code.

We should really have an independent thread about this though, as it's
not what Robert's asking about here.

Thanks!

Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Next
From: Venkata B Nagothi
Date:
Subject: Re: patch proposal