| From: | Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Thomas Carroll <tomfecarroll(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wal_keep_size |
| Date: | 2025-10-12 07:55:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAJk5AtbR9NCx464baRxbAUesjJNgW5sPPRoMa6q_a9edd-47Ng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks for the clarification.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 10:58, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-10-07 at 10:22 +0530, Raj wrote:
> > If wal_keep_size is more than max_wal_size wouldn't it always trigger
> checkpoint ?
>
> No. "max_wal_size" has no direct connection with the size of WAL (and I
> think we should have chosen a different name for that parameter). The
> parameter is about the amount of WAL *generated since the latest
> checkpoint*,
> not about the absolute amount of WAL present.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sam Stearns | 2025-10-14 20:32:01 | Postgres Resource Sizing |
| Previous Message | kaido vaikla | 2025-10-09 11:56:13 | Veeam method for pg backup. |