| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-03-17 06:05:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1z4kq-8+GPounmqqtyRJ-4+Uxf0-2NAzY=Mtq73+g6FrQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com
> wrote:
>
> Everyone seems to be happy with the names and behaviour of the GUCs, so
> committed.
The docs suggest that max_wal_size will be respected during archive
recovery (causing restartpoints and recycling), but I'm not seeing that
happening. Is this a doc bug or an implementation bug?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-03-17 06:09:34 | Re: Moving Pivotal's Greenplum work upstream |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-03-17 05:51:20 | Re: Question about TEMP tables |