On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 19:44 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> As the result of the above, the maximum number of WAL files in
>> pg_xlog is
>> (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1
>> wal_keep_segments + checkpoint_segments + 1
>> So the original description seems to be correct. Am I missing
> After some thought, I agree.
I've put back the original formula.
>> # My previous proposal is definitely wrong. Sorry for noise.
> I'd say the definition of wal_keep_segments isn't good, which is what is
> causing the problem here. Will sort that out another day.
> I will update the current code with some comments, so this doesn't
> happen again. Will do this on Tuesday now, no time left here.
This is probably a good idea, because the comments in xlog.c are a bit
sparse on this point, but I haven't tried to do it.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-10-28 18:59:23|
|Subject: Re: Additional index entries and table sorting|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-10-27 01:46:44|
|Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Asynchronous I/O in Postgres|