Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Date: 2011-09-02 18:14:26
Message-ID: CABUevExExTREsuc-j5ZLO-GbtS-k7_FnBROULdD-j=YDPww33g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 20:12, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Attached patch implements a "low watermark wal location" in the
>> walsender shmem array. Setting this value in a walsender prevents
>> transaction log removal prior to this point - similar to how
>> wal_keep_segments work, except with an absolute number rather than
>> relative.
>
> cool! just a question, shouldn't we clean the value after the base
> backup has finished?

We should. Thanks, will fix!

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-09-02 18:15:34
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2011-09-02 18:12:40
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group