Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-25 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
caching in ZFS. As I understand it now such config can provide better results since data will be cached once in ZFS. On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 09/24/2017 11:03 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote: > > Thanks for your response. Ss I understand it now the difference is

Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-24 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
e a typo? If not then what data is written synchronously? On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/23/2017 08:18 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared > >

[GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-22 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Hi, I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared buffers, e.g. shared_buffers = 512mb max_wal_size = 2gb As I understand a checkpoint happens after 2gb of data were modified (writter to WAL), but shared buffers can contain at most 512mb of dirty pages to be flushed to th

[GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-22 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Hi, I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared buffers, e.g. shared_buffers = 512mb max_wal_size = 2gb As I understand a checkpoint happens after 2gb of data were modified (writter to WAL), but shared buffers can contain at most 512mb of dirty pages to be flushed to th