On 2020-08-18 16:35, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com>
It's important to provide the metrics for tuning the size of WAL
buffers.
For now, it's lack of the statistics how often processes wait to write
WAL
because WAL buffer is full.
If those situation are often occurred, WAL buffer is too small for the
workload.
DBAs must to tune the WAL buffer size for performance improvement.
Yes, it's helpful to know if we need to enlarge the WAL buffer.
That's why our colleague HariBabu proposed the patch. We'd be happy
if it could be committed in some form.
There are related threads, but those are not merged.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4ff824f3.5090...@uptime.jp
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNx
pL8gXKYv1KST%2BvwJcFtCSCEySnA%40mail.gmail.com
What's the difference between those patches? What blocked them from
being committed?
Thanks for replying.
Since the above threads are not active now and those patches can't be
applied HEAD,
I made this thread. If it is better to reply the above thread, I will do
so.
If my understanding is correct, we have to measure the performance
impact first.
Do you know HariBabu is now trying to solve it? If not, I will try to
modify patches to apply HEAD.
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
