| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 01:09:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC0E465.4000700@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Very true. But the lack of a -1 setting for wal_keep_segments means
>> that if you would like to take a backup without archiving, you must
>> set wal_keep_segments to a value greater than or equal to the rate at
>> which you generate WAL segments multiplied by the time it takes you to
>> run a backup. If that doesn't qualify as requiring arcane knowledge,
>> I'm mystified as to what ever could.
Speaking of which, what's the relationship between checkpoint_segments
and wal_keep_segments? PG seems perfectly willing to let me set the
latter higher than the former, and it's not documented.
If checkpoint_segments were a hard limit, then we could let admins set
wal_keep_segments to -1, knowing that they'd set checkpoint_segments to
the max space they had available.
Although we might want to rename those.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-22 01:29:06 | Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types |
| Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2010-10-22 01:03:40 | Re: pg_rawdump |