On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. <places tongue firmly in cheek> Gee, too bad there's not some other shared-memory implementation we could use... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
