| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-02-22 04:29:03 |
| Message-ID: | 54E95B0F.3050107@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13/02/15 18:43, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Ok, I don't hear any loud objections to min_wal_size and max_wal_size,
> so let's go with that then.
>
> Attached is a new version of this. It now comes in four patches. The
> first three are just GUC-related preliminary work, the first of which I
> posted on a separate thread today.
>
The 0001 patch is very nice, I would go ahead and commit it.
Not really sure I see the need for 0002 but it should not harm anything
so why not.
The 0003 should be part of 0004 IMHO as it does not really do anything
by itself.
I am wondering a bit about interaction with wal_keep_segments.
One thing is that wal_keep_segments is still specified in number of
segments and not size units, maybe it would be worth to change it also?
And the other thing is that, if set, the wal_keep_segments is the real
max_wal_size from the user perspective (not from perspective of the
algorithm in this patch, but user does not really care about that) which
is somewhat weird given the naming.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-22 05:07:17 | Re: Variable renaming in AllocSetContextCreate (will commit soon, no functional impact) |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-02-22 03:59:30 | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 |