| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpoint_segments upgrade recommendation? |
| Date: | 2015-10-21 01:44:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSYCDf4H3xR+rJLKB_HLP_KY1iqbLwqmTnvzgswmDpxrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/17/15 10:25 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I think that we should just suggest a reverse formula of the maximum
> > soft limit of checkpoint_segments for max_wal_size in the release notes
> > of 9.5, basically:
> > (3 * your_old_checkpoint_segments + 1) * 16MB = max_wal_size
>
> How about this patch?
>
> (Actually, I'd remove the + 1 to make the numbers come out rounder.)
>
Removing the + 1 is fine for me.
+ been removed. Its place it taken by the new
"Its place is taken".
Other than those little things this looks fine to me.
Regards,
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2015-10-21 02:10:48 | Re: Debugging buildfarm pg_upgrade check failures |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-10-21 01:14:26 | Re: Multi-column distinctness. |