On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> That's certainly better, but I think we should go further. Again,
>> you're not committed to using this space all the time, and if you are
>> using it you must have a lot of write activity, which means you are
>> not running on a tin can and a string. If you have a little tiny
>> database, say 100MB, running on a little-tiny Amazon instance,
>> handling a small number of transactions, you're going to stay close to
>> wal_min_size anyway. Right?
>
> Well, we can test that.
>
> So what's your proposed size?
I previously proposed 100 segments, or 1.6GB. If that seems too
large, how about 64 segments, or 1.024GB? I think there will be few
people who can't tolerate a gigabyte of xlog under peak load, and an
awful lot who will benefit from it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
