| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com |
| 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 |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2018-09-06 20:32:21 |
| Message-ID: | 29bbd79d-696b-509e-578a-0fc38a3b9405@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This documentation
+ <para>
+ Specify the maximum size of WAL files
+ that <link linkend="streaming-replication-slots">replication
+ slots</link> are allowed to retain in the
<filename>pg_wal</filename>
+ directory at checkpoint time.
+ If <varname>max_slot_wal_keep_size</varname> is zero (the default),
+ replication slots retain unlimited size of WAL files.
+ </para>
doesn't say anything about what happens when the limit is exceeded.
Does the system halt until the WAL is fetched from the slots? Do the
slots get invalidated?
Also, I don't think 0 is a good value for the default behavior. 0 would
mean that a slot is not allowed to retain any more WAL than already
exists anyway. Maybe we don't want to support that directly, but it's a
valid configuration. So maybe use -1 for infinity.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-09-06 20:34:33 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-06 20:23:03 | Re: *_to_xml() should copy SPI_processed/SPI_tuptable |