| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 02:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=Z_KfAW6eTbmEB63XCY0bp8iuRaVmwPPEgRksq@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If you set wal_keep_segments=0, archive_mode=on, and
>> archive_command=<something>, you might run out of disk space.
>>
>> If you set wal_keep_segments=-1, you might run out of disk space.
>>
>> Are you any more screwed in the second case than you are in the first
>> case?
>
> It is the same to the user either way. In either case you have to
> change some settings and restart the master.
Except that changing wal_keep_segments doesn't require restarting the master.
The point of allowing -1 was to allow someone to set it to that value
temporarily, to be able to do a hot backup without having to guess how
large to set it. If you don't have enough disk space for a backup to
complete, you're kind of hosed either way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-10-27 03:10:56 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-27 01:59:29 | Re: Simplifying replication |