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

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date
Msg-id AANLkTik10Yp08LqUiKBVpfhfWV-44vmj3h331U0FskOR@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Why is the minimum value 64kB only when wal_buffers is set to
>> -1? This seems confusing for users.
>>
>
> That's because the current default on older versions is 64kB.  Since the
> automatic selection is going to be the new default, I hope, I don't want it
> to be possible it will pick a number smaller than the default of older
> versions.  So the automatic lower limit is 64kB, while the actual manually
> set lower limit remains 32kB, as before.

It would be helpful to explain that as the source code comment. Also
in the document.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hitoshi Harada
Date:
Subject: Re: REVIEW: PL/Python validator function
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/python refactoring