Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K
Date
Msg-id ZSSQjIYdjFxw_dp9@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct  9, 2023 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2023-10-09 19:26:54 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct  9, 2023 at 04:08:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > There's an alternative approach we could take, which is to write in 4KB
> > > increments, while keeping 8KB pages. With the current format that's not
> > > obviously a bad idea. But given there aren't really advantages in 8KB WAL
> > > pages, it seems we should just go for 4KB?
> > 
> > How do we handle shorter maximum row lengths and shorter maximum index
> > entry lengths?
> 
> The WAL blocksize shouldn't influence either, unless we have a bug somewhere.

Oh, good point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: post-recovery amcheck expectations