| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 02:03:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC0F10D.3000201@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think it's pretty well explained in the fine manual.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-WAL-KEEP-SEGMENTS
Nope. No relationship to checkpoint_segments is explained there. Try
again?
>> 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.
>
> This assumes that more checkpoint segments is always better, which
> isn't true. I might have 100 GB of disk space free, but not want to
> replay WAL for 4 days if I have a crash.
No, it assumes no such thing.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-22 02:13:17 | Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-22 01:52:40 | Re: Simplifying replication |