Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Dan Armbrust
Subject Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
Date
Msg-id 82f04dc40907101225v4e3f12b7u4533da8a7ac2ecec@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
List pgsql-general
> Hm, I'm not sure I believe any of that except the last bit, seeing that
> he's got plenty of excess CPU capability.  But the last bit fits with
> the wimpy-I/O problem, and it also offers something we could test.
> Dan, please see what happens when you vary the wal_buffers setting.
> (Note you need a postmaster restart to change that.)
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

Ok, I tried a few different values - 32kb, 64kb, 512kb, 2MB and 10MB.

I'm not seeing any highly noticeable change in behaviour with any
setting - it wasn't a scientific test, but I seem to have about the
same size hiccup with each setting.  The hiccup may be slightly
shorter with the 10MB setting, but barely, if it is.

Thanks,

Dan

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
Date:
Subject: Re: How to trace client sql requests?
Next
From: "James B. Byrne"
Date:
Subject: Re: How to trace client sql requests?