> You have to put the WAL files *somewhere* while you do the base backup.
> PostgreSQL can't itself work out where that is, nor can it work out
> ahead of time how big it will need to be, since it is up to you how you
> do your base backup. Setting a parameter to -1 doesn't make the problem
> go away, it just pretends and hopes it doesn't exist, but screws you
> badly if you do hit the wall.
Agreed. That's why I like the idea of having a
max_wal_size/min_wal_time instead of keep_wal_segments or
checkpoint_segments. It's relatively simple for a DBA to know how much
disk space s/he has for WAL, total, before locking up the system.
And to answer Robert's question, because now I understand what he was
getting at. The reason we want a min_wal_time is because we don't want
to keep a larger WAL around always. If more WAL were always better,
then we'd only need max_wal_size and we'd only recycle when we hit it.
Instead, we'd recycle whenever we passed max_wal_time. That's why I
said that I was assuming nothing of the sort.
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-27 21:18:06|
|Subject: Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions |
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-10-27 20:53:37|
|Subject: Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships|