| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2017-03-03 19:47:20 |
| Message-ID: | ac510b45-7805-7ccc-734c-1b38a6645f3e@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/1/17 19:54, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> Please measure it in size, not in number of segments.
> It was difficult to dicide which is reaaonable but I named it
> after wal_keep_segments because it has the similar effect.
>
> In bytes(or LSN)
> max_wal_size
> min_wal_size
> wal_write_flush_after
>
> In segments
> wal_keep_segments
We have been moving away from measuring in segments. For example,
checkpoint_segments was replaced by max_wal_size.
Also, with the proposed patch that allows changing the segment size more
easily, this will become more important. (I wonder if that will require
wal_keep_segments to change somehow.)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-03 19:49:36 | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-03 19:37:55 | Re: Logical Replication and Character encoding |