Re: Wal_keep_size

From: Thomas Carroll <tomfecarroll(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Wal_keep_size
Date: 2025-10-06 21:38:03
Message-ID: 469228369.58843.1759786683881@mail.yahoo.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Hope nobody minds me chipping in here.
The answer is "not necessarily."  The names make them seem closely related, but not so much.
max_wal_size is all about checkpoints.  When the WAL exceeds this, Postgres will try to run a checkpoint.  Under some circumstances it won't, but let's keep it simple for now.
wal_keep_size is all about replication.  Replicas need WAL files to stick around for long enough that they can process them.  wal_keep_size is a minimum figure.
Tom On Monday, October 6, 2025 at 03:51:17 PM EDT, Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

Should Wal_keep_size <= max_wal_size ?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Raj 2025-10-07 04:52:47 Re: Wal_keep_size
Previous Message Raj 2025-10-06 19:50:41 Wal_keep_size