Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:25:09 +0000
From: Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WAL storage when archive_command=''
Message-ID: <YxrqVUY5dvXKMoIX@admin.sibptus.ru>
References: <YxrHeKWaNZpaJea9@admin.sibptus.ru>
 <aa76c4bc-b1ed-7e72-5b13-13c78852e420@jakobs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa76c4bc-b1ed-7e72-5b13-13c78852e420@jakobs.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YxrqVUY5dvXKMoIX%40admin.sibptus.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Holger Jakobs wrote:
> 
> Am 09.09.22 um 06:56 schrieb Victor Sudakov:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > With archive_mode='on' and archive_command='', is there a limit on WAL
> > files accumulation or will they be kept infinitely until the disk is
> > full?
> >
> > Actually I'd prefer them to be kept infinitely, just want to make sure
> > it's really the case.
> >
> There is no limit. The disk will run full.

That's actually great that unarchived WAL files will never get
deleted or reused. Thank you for confirming this.

I was pretty sure about the situation when the archive_command returns
a non-zero status, but not so sure about an empty archive_command.

> 
> That's why disk space is the #1 priority in monitoring a PostgreSQL 
> instance.


-- 
Victor Sudakov VAS4-RIPE
http://vas.tomsk.ru/
2:5005/49@fidonet