MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAJk5AtbaQYshqms+AnVn0A_BOHFjfYhdEaAsLGWf0zVnA_5N7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <469228369.58843.1759786683881@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAJk5AtbeY+O71bbESq1+rG3zqv=mPzEDaxMniXuBfjZ7+RKpaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <25f8e8b5a47d9d0d12881b3d1b36e8a8bd6d89d2.camel@cybertec.at>
In-Reply-To: <25f8e8b5a47d9d0d12881b3d1b36e8a8bd6d89d2.camel@cybertec.at>
From: Raj <rajeshkumar.dba09@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:25:30 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJk5AtbR9NCx464baRxbAUesjJNgW5sPPRoMa6q_a9edd-47Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Wal_keep_size
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Thomas Carroll <tomfecarroll@yahoo.com>,
 Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b55cf0640f17a3b"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJk5AtbR9NCx464baRxbAUesjJNgW5sPPRoMa6q_a9edd-47Ng%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000003b55cf0640f17a3b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thanks for the clarification.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 10:58, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:

> 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
> checkpoint ?
>
> 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
>

--0000000000003b55cf0640f17a3b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks for the clarification.=C2=A0</div><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">O=
n Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 10:58, Laurenz Albe &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laurenz.albe=
@cybertec.at">laurenz.albe@cybertec.at</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 2025-10-07 at 10:22 +0530, Ra=
j wrote:<br>
&gt; If wal_keep_size is more than max_wal_size wouldn&#39;t it always trig=
ger checkpoint ?<br>
<br>
No.=C2=A0 &quot;max_wal_size&quot; has no direct connection with the size o=
f WAL (and I<br>
think we should have chosen a different name for that parameter).=C2=A0 The=
<br>
parameter is about the amount of WAL *generated since the latest checkpoint=
*,<br>
not about the absolute amount of WAL present.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
Laurenz Albe<br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000003b55cf0640f17a3b--