| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2018-08-02 13:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYVrKY0W0jigJymFZo0ewkQoWGfLLpiTSgJLQN3tcHGTg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I thought it's to be deprecated for some reason so I'm leaving
> wal_keep_segments in '# of segments' even though the new GUC is
> in MB. I'm a bit uneasy that the two similar settings are in
> different units. Couldn't we turn it into MB taking this
> opportunity if we will keep wal_keep_segments, changing its name
> to min_wal_keep_size? max_slot_wal_keep_size could be changed to
> just max_wal_keep_size along with it.
This seems like it's a little bit of a separate topic from what this
thread about, but FWIW, +1 for standardizing on MB.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-02 13:18:57 | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2018-08-02 12:11:44 | Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header |