Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, 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, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date: 2018-08-03 04:59:51
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:05:33 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmoYVrKY0W0jigJymFZo0ewkQoWGfLLpiTSgJLQN3tcHGTg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > I thought it's to be deprecated for some reason so I'm leaving
> > wal_keep_segments in '# of segments' even though the new GUC is
> > in MB. I'm a bit uneasy that the two similar settings are in
> > different units. Couldn't we turn it into MB taking this
> > opportunity if we will keep wal_keep_segments, changing its name
> > to min_wal_keep_size? max_slot_wal_keep_size could be changed to
> > just max_wal_keep_size along with it.
> This seems like it's a little bit of a separate topic from what this
> thread about, but FWIW, +1 for standardizing on MB.

Thanks. Ok, I'll raise this after separately with this.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2018-08-03 05:58:03 Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-08-03 04:57:29 Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types