From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and a disk full in primary |
Date: | 2010-04-15 22:13:41 |
Message-ID: | p2r603c8f071004151513g17f53b70y4ee578f3588e1373@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've realized another problem with this patch. standby_keep_segments
>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes
>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all. And of course, a
>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby
>> server as one that uses streaming replication. So at a minimum, the
>> name of this GUC is very confusing.
>
> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow
> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions?
I sort of feel like the correct description is something like
num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long. The actual
behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-04-15 22:28:03 | Re: [PATCH] Add --ordered option to pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-15 22:00:58 | Re: Very ineffective plan with merge join |