On 03/02/2015 12:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 08:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> That was the impression I had too, which was why I was surprised. The
>> last post on the topic was one by Robert Haas, agreeing with me on a
>> value of 1GB, and there were zero objections after that.
>
> I didn't make any further posts to that thread because I had already
> objected earlier and didn't have anything to add.
>
> Now, if someone's going to go and raise the default, I'm not going to
> make a fuss about it, but the fact remains that *all* the defaults in
> postgresql.conf.sample are geared towards small systems, and not hogging
> all resources. The default max_wal_size of 128 MB is well in line with
> e.g. shared_buffers=128MB.
OK, I don't think Robert or I realized that you were still not agreeing.I originally thought we should keep it small,
butRobert pointed out
that under your code, WAL only grows if you have high traffic.
Patch attached in a new thread.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
