Josh Berkus <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database >> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves >> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn >> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase >> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable. > We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem. Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes, but we could very probably increase it by a factor of 10 or so without anyone squawking. It's been awhile since I heard of anyone trying to run PG in 4MB shmmax. How much would a change of that size help? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
