From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: formula about the number of WAL files |
Date: | 2010-10-28 01:30:44 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=9=+CRA_GA2CTUYVHwBgbxDyVbgX3gU7x7fx_S@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 19:44 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> As the result of the above, the maximum number of WAL files in
>> pg_xlog is
>>
>> (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1
>>
>> or
>>
>> wal_keep_segments + checkpoint_segments + 1
>>
>> So the original description seems to be correct. Am I missing
>> something?
>
> After some thought, I agree.
I've put back the original formula.
>> # My previous proposal is definitely wrong. Sorry for noise.
>
> I'd say the definition of wal_keep_segments isn't good, which is what is
> causing the problem here. Will sort that out another day.
>
> I will update the current code with some comments, so this doesn't
> happen again. Will do this on Tuesday now, no time left here.
This is probably a good idea, because the comments in xlog.c are a bit
sparse on this point, but I haven't tried to do it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-10-28 18:59:23 | Re: Additional index entries and table sorting |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-27 01:46:44 | Re: [NOVICE] Asynchronous I/O in Postgres |