| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20170306.182006.172683338.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
regards,
--
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 |
| 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 |