| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2018-07-31 19:11:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20180731191152.GA2791@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:26:59PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hello. This is the reabased version of slot-limit feature.
>
> This patch limits maximum WAL segments to be kept by replication
> slots. Replication slot is useful to avoid desync with replicas
> after temporary disconnection but it is dangerous when some of
> replicas are lost. The WAL space can be exhausted and server can
> PANIC in the worst case. This can prevent the worst case having a
> benefit from replication slots using a new GUC variable
> max_slot_wal_keep_size.
Have you considered just using a boolean to control if max_wal_size
honors WAL preserved by replication slots, rather than creating the new
GUC max_slot_wal_keep_size?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-31 19:14:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-07-31 19:11:50 | Re: Doc patch: add RECURSIVE to bookindex |