Message-ID: <25f8e8b5a47d9d0d12881b3d1b36e8a8bd6d89d2.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Wal_keep_size
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Raj <rajeshkumar.dba09@gmail.com>, Thomas Carroll
 <tomfecarroll@yahoo.com>
Cc: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 07:28:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJk5AtbeY+O71bbESq1+rG3zqv=mPzEDaxMniXuBfjZ7+RKpaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAJk5AtbaQYshqms+AnVn0A_BOHFjfYhdEaAsLGWf0zVnA_5N7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <469228369.58843.1759786683881@mail.yahoo.com>
	 <CAJk5AtbeY+O71bbESq1+rG3zqv=mPzEDaxMniXuBfjZ7+RKpaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25f8e8b5a47d9d0d12881b3d1b36e8a8bd6d89d2.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

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 che=
ckpoint ?

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