Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date
Msg-id 20767.1294964709@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> +1, I like the idea. Would it still be there to override if necessary?

> Depends what people want to do.  We could make the default "0kB", and
> define that to mean "auto-tune", or we could remove the parameter
> altogether.  I think I was envisioning the latter, but if people are
> hesitant to do that we could do the former instead.

I think we need to keep the override capability until the autotune
algorithm has proven itself in the field for a couple of years.

I agree with Josh that a negative value should be used to select the
autotune method.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"