From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup |
Date: | 2011-09-02 18:52:25 |
Message-ID: | 22600.1314989545@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Attached patch implements a "low watermark wal location" in the
> walsender shmem array. Setting this value in a walsender prevents
> transaction log removal prior to this point - similar to how
> wal_keep_segments work, except with an absolute number rather than
> relative. For now, this is set when running a base backup with WAL
> included - to prevent the required WAL to be recycled away while the
> backup is running, without having to guestimate the value for
> wal_keep_segments. (There could be other ways added to set it in the
> future, but that's the only one I've done for now)
I agree with that parenthetical remark, ie that we'll probably consider
other uses for this in future, so I'd suggest changing this one comment:
> + * Also check if there any in-progress base backup that has set
> + * a low watermark preventing us from removing it.
Just say "if any WAL sender has a low watermark that prevents us from
removing it".
Looks reasonably sane otherwise, modulo Jaime's comment about the
missing reset step.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-09-02 18:54:05 | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-02 18:48:24 | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |