| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing wal_keep_segments as default configuration in PostgresNode.pm |
| Date: | 2017-11-02 16:47:05 |
| Message-ID: | ab973881-801c-dd2f-5456-72af1828086c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to
> deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause
> up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal's instance,
> while max_wal_size is set at 128MB. The only test in the code tree in
> need of wal_keep_segments is actually pg_rewind, which enforces
> checkpoints after the rewind to update the source's control file.
>
> So, thoughts about the attached that reworks this portion of PostgresNode.pm?
Committed.
Besides the resource usage, it would probably be bad if a
wal_keep_segments setting papered over problems with replication slots
for example.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-11-02 16:47:26 | Re: pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-02 16:44:34 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |