Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog
Date: 2017-03-07 16:16:29
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYy1oDM68Au_YK7_oLggkizY4YRBwrhqw7P36==en6RTg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3/6/17 17:16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What if we told pg_receivewal (or pg_receivexlog, whatever that is) a
>> maximum number of segments to retain before removing old ones? Like
>> pg_receivewal --limit-retained-segments=50GB, or something like that.
>
> That would be doable, but would it solve anyone's problem? I think
> pg_receivewal retention would usually be governed either by the
> available base backups, or by some time-based business metric.

Well, if the problem you're trying to solve is "retain WAL for as long
as possible without running out of disk space and having everything go
kablooey", then it would solve that problem, and I think that's a very
reasonable problem to want to solve.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-07 16:20:21 Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-07 16:14:48 Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan