Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size
Date: 2016-09-30 14:05:06
Message-ID: eeee30d0-5108-09fb-497c-ec2f9a36fee9@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
>>> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
>>>
>>> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160609.215558.118976703.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>>>
>> +1. I've tested after applying the patch. This clearly solves the problem.
>
> Even if many things have been discussed on this thread,
> Horiguchi-san's first patch is still the best approach found after
> several lookups and attempts when messing with the recovery code.

What is the status of that patch then? The above thread seems to have
stopped.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2016-09-30 14:13:12 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2016-09-30 13:12:19 Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?