Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEIPCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I don't think this is based on a useful test for wal_buffers.  The
> wal_buffers setting only has to be large enough for the maximum amount
> of WAL log data that your system emits between commits, because a commit
> (from anyone) is going to flush the WAL data to disk (for everyone).
> So a benchmark based on short transactions is just not going to show
> any benefit to increasing the setting.

Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024 wal_buffers
as opposed to 8?

Chris


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: More benchmarking of wal_buffers