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

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date
Msg-id 4D314650.9010601@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I guess a manual override doesn't bother me too much, but I am a bit dubious of its
> value, and there is value in keeping the GUC count down...

It's a risk-reward thing really.  The reward for removing it is that a 
few lines of code and a small section of the documentation go away.  
It's not very big.  The risk seems low, but it's not zero.  Let's say 
this goes in, we get to 9.2 or later, and a survey suggests that no one 
has needed to ever set wal_buffers when deploying 9.1.  At that point I 
think everyone would feel much better considering to nuke it 
altogether.  I just looked at the code again when developing the patch, 
and there's really not enough benefit to removing it to worry about 
taking any risk right now.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support  www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases