From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Marc Rechté <marc4(at)rechte(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted |
Date: | 2020-05-07 13:09:07 |
Message-ID: | CAECtzeUAmmGhu3XxyEfp9mAEnUa23nsjiRodbKStvpUNHwCt7Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Le jeu. 7 mai 2020 à 11:13, Marc Rechté <marc4(at)rechte(dot)fr> a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> It is possible to startup an instance with min > max, without the system
> complaining:
>
> mrechte=# show min_wal_size ;
>
> 2020-05-07 11:12:11.422 CEST [11098] LOG: durée : 0.279 ms
>
> min_wal_size
>
> --------------
>
> 128MB
>
> (1 ligne)
>
>
>
> mrechte=# show max_wal_size ;
>
> 2020-05-07 11:12:12.814 CEST [11098] LOG: durée : 0.275 ms
>
> max_wal_size
>
> --------------
>
> 64MB
>
> (1 ligne)
>
>
> This could be an issue ?
>
>
I don't see how this could be an issue. You'll get a checkpoint every time
64MB have been written before checkpoint_timeout kicked in. And WAL files
will be removed if you have more than 128MB of them.
Not the smartest configuration, but not a damaging one either.
--
Guillaume.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-05-07 13:09:10 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-05-07 13:08:04 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |