| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2013-06-06 10:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | 51B06214.8080304@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.06.2013 22:18, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I was not thinking of making it a hard limit. It would be just
>> like checkpoint_segments from that point of view - if a
>> checkpoint takes a long time, max_wal_size might still be
>> exceeded.
>
> Then I suggest we not use exactly that name. I feel quite sure we
> would get complaints from people if something labeled as "max" was
> exceeded -- especially if they set that to the actual size of a
> filesystem dedicated to WAL files.
You're probably right. Any suggestions for a better name?
wal_size_soft_limit?
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-06-06 10:26:12 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-06-06 10:05:50 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |