Re: Removing wal_keep_segments as default configuration in PostgresNode.pm

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removing wal_keep_segments as default configuration in PostgresNode.pm
Date: 2017-11-02 16:48:11
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSCD2oXMfGA3Bkzfr0504xiH3G5F52FKyVcq23BQkqS0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to
>> deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause
>> up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal's instance,
>> while max_wal_size is set at 128MB. The only test in the code tree in
>> need of wal_keep_segments is actually pg_rewind, which enforces
>> checkpoints after the rewind to update the source's control file.
>>
>> So, thoughts about the attached that reworks this portion of PostgresNode.pm?
>
> Committed.
>
> Besides the resource usage, it would probably be bad if a
> wal_keep_segments setting papered over problems with replication slots
> for example.

Thanks! I almost forgot this patch.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2017-11-02 16:48:56 Re: pgbench - use enum for meta commands
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-11-02 16:47:26 Re: pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple