Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
>>>> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160609.215558.118976703.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>>>>
>>> +1. I've tested after applying the patch. This clearly solves the problem.
>>
>> Even if many things have been discussed on this thread,
>> Horiguchi-san's first patch is still the best approach found after
>> several lookups and attempts when messing with the recovery code.
>
> What is the status of that patch then? The above thread seems to have
> stopped.

The conclusion is to use the original patch proposed by Horiguchi-san,
and with a test case I have added you get that:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTv5gmKQcNDoFGTGqoqXz2xLz4RRw247oqOJzZTVy6-7Q%40mail.gmail.com
--
Michael