Thread: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From
Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
> Would it be possible to split the WAL traffic into two sets of files,

Sure, downside is two fsyncs :-( When I first suggested physical log 
I had a separate file in mind, but that is imho only a small issue.

Of course people with more than 3 disks could benefit from a split.

Tom: If your ratio of physical pages vs WAL records is so bad, the config
should simply be changes to do fewer checkpoints (say every 20 min like a 
typical Informix setup).

Andreas


Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> Tom: If your ratio of physical pages vs WAL records is so bad, the config
> should simply be changes to do fewer checkpoints (say every 20 min like a 
> typical Informix setup).

I was using the default configuration.  What caused the problem was
probably not so much the standard 5-minute time-interval-driven
checkpoints, as it was the standard every-3-WAL-segments checkpoints.
Possibly we ought to increase that number?
        regards, tom lane