From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: q re removal/recycling of WAL files
Message-Id: <4B485D8E-9692-4009-8562-43BC0E54C975@elevated-dev.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:24:18 -0600
To: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B485D8E-9692-4009-8562-43BC0E54C975%40elevated-dev.com>
Precedence: bulk

Let's say that there's a big update as part of a migration, and that =
update times out, and the migration utility retries it several times. =
(Context is that sequence happened through automated utility, and filled =
the disk, leading to an unfortunate series of events.)

1) At what point does WAL from the failed & rolled back operations "go =
away"? During the next checkpoint? During the checkpoint after =
completion of all other transactions which overlapped time-wise with the =
timing-out ones?

2) Is there a chance that never-visible rows would be written into =
tables, bloating them?


--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottribe/