Re: Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date: 2017-03-06 09:20:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you for the comment.

At Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:47:20 -0500, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <ac510b45-7805-7ccc-734c-1b38a6645f3e(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> On 3/1/17 19:54, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >> Please measure it in size, not in number of segments.
> > It was difficult to dicide which is reaaonable but I named it
> > after wal_keep_segments because it has the similar effect.
> >
> > In bytes(or LSN)
> > max_wal_size
> > min_wal_size
> > wal_write_flush_after
> >
> > In segments
> > wal_keep_segments
> We have been moving away from measuring in segments. For example,
> checkpoint_segments was replaced by max_wal_size.
> Also, with the proposed patch that allows changing the segment size more
> easily, this will become more important. (I wonder if that will require
> wal_keep_segments to change somehow.)

Agreed. It is 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' in the new version.

wal_keep_segments might should be removed someday.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-WAL-releaf-vent-for-replication-slots_20170306.patch text/x-patch 3.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-03-06 09:25:03 Re: Print correct startup cost for the group aggregate.
Previous Message vinayak 2017-03-06 09:20:04 Re: ANALYZE command progress checker