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: | 2010-04-12 13:04:49 |
Message-ID: | p2y603c8f071004120604j94179dd6j7c2b6e687a4c5007@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Why is standby_keep_segments used even if max_wal_senders is zero?
>> In that case, ISTM we don't need to keep any WAL files in pg_xlog
>> for the standby.
>
> True. I don't think we should second guess the admin on that, though.
> Perhaps he only set max_wal_senders=0 temporarily, and will be
> disappointed if the the logs are no longer there when he sets it back to
> non-zero and restarts the server.
If archive_mode is off and max_wal_senders = 0, then the WAL that's
being generated won't be usable for streaming anyway, right?
I think this is another manifestation of the problem I was complaining
about over the weekend: there's no longer a single GUC that controls
what type of information we emit as WAL. In previous releases,
archive_mode served that function, but now it's much more complicated
and, IMHO, not very comprehensible.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00509.php
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-12 13:17:56 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-04-12 12:58:15 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |