| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 02:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikG+u+ETBB=m64r+p_gT0CA_9L=QB_ysgE_v9pb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think it's pretty well explained in the fine manual.
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-WAL-KEEP-SEGMENTS
>
> Nope. No relationship to checkpoint_segments is explained there. Try
> again?
Well, it says "This sets only the minimum number of segments retained
in pg_xlog; the system might need to retain more segments for WAL
archival or to recover from a checkpoint." So in other words, the
relationship with checkpoint segments is that whichever one currently
requires retaining a larger number of segments applies. That's all
the relationship there is. I'm not sure I understand the question.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-22 02:24:45 | Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-22 02:13:17 | Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers |