[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Redesigning checkpoint_segments
From:       Bruce Momjian <bruce () momjian ! us>
Date:       2014-01-31 23:38:29
Message-ID: 20140131233829.GD19957 () momjian ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:08:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> You can also set min_recycle_wal_size = checkpoint_wal_size, which
> gets you the same behavior as without the patch, except that it's
> more intuitive to set it in terms of "MB of WAL space required",
> instead of "# of segments between checkpoints".
> 
> Does that make sense? I'd love to hear feedback on how people
> setting up production databases would like to tune these things. The
> reason for the auto-tuning between the min and max is to be able to
> set reasonable defaults e.g for embedded systems that don't have a
> DBA to do tuning. Currently, it's very difficult to come up with a
> reasonable default value for checkpoint_segments which would work
> well for a wide range of systems. The PostgreSQL default of 3 is way
> way too low for most systems. On the other hand, if you set it to,
> say, 20, that's a lot of wasted space for a small database that's
> not updated much. With this patch, you can set "max_wal_size=1GB"
> and if the database ends up actually only needing 100 MB of WAL, it
> will only use that much and not waste 900 MB for useless
> preallocated WAL files.

Where are we on this?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]