On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
>> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
>> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
>> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
>> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
>
> We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
<places tongue firmly in cheek>
Gee, too bad there's not some other shared-memory implementation we could use...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
