wal_buffers = -1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject wal_buffers = -1
Date
Msg-id CABUevEzF7m9wjfqYEVK0DkdxbaVdJ0UF=zEpcWU1e3z01msiuA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: wal_buffers = -1  (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
Re: wal_buffers = -1  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Is there any real use-case for not setting wal_buffers to -1 these days?

Or should we just remove it and use the -1 behaviour at all times?

IIRC we discussed not keeping it at all when the autotune behavior was introduced, but said we wanted to keep it "just in case". If we're not ready to remove it, then does that just mean that we need to fix it so we can?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: option --if-exists for pg_dump
Next
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_buffers = -1