|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Subject:||Re: Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
I'll add this to CF2017-09.
At Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:20:06 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20170306(dot)182006(dot)172683338(dot)horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> 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.
- Following to min/max_wal_size, the variable was renamed to
"max_slot_wal_keep_size_mb" and used as ConvertToXSegs(x)"
- Stopped warning when checkpoint doesn't flush segments required
by slots even if max_slot_wal_keep_size have worked.
- Avoided subraction that may be negative.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2017-08-28 10:02:35||Re: Make pg_regress print a connstring with sockdir|
|Previous Message||Pavel Stehule||2017-08-28 09:28:31||Re: psql --batch|