Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Date
Msg-id ZFnJVcaEi/7t2U8H@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:34:56AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Below is the configuration I've been using. I have been keeping the
> checkpoints away so far to get expected numbers. Probably, something
> that I should modify for this long run? Change checkpoint_timeout to
> 15 min or so?
>
> max_wal_size=64GB
> checkpoint_timeout=1d
> shared_buffers=8GB
> max_connections=5000

Noted.  Something like that should be OK IMO, with all the checkpoints
generated based on the volume generated.  With records that have a
fixed size, this should, I assume, lead to results that could be
compared across runs, even if the patched code would lead to more
checkpoints generated.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Next
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Subscription statistics are not dropped at DROP SUBSCRIPTION in some cases