From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:25:35 -0400
Message-ID: <20200701202535.GA26854@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200701194508.GA14470@momjian.us>
On 2020-Jul-01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We have the following wal*size GUC settings:
>
> SELECT name FROM pg_settings WHERE name LIKE '%wal%size%';
> name
> ------------------------
> max_slot_wal_keep_size
> max_wal_size
> min_wal_size
> wal_block_size
> wal_segment_size
>
> Does wal_keep_size make sense here?
I think it does. What do you think?
Are you suggesting that "keep_wal_size" is better, since it's more in
line with min/max? I lean towards no.
(I think it's okay to conceptually separate these three options from
wal_block_size, since that's a compile time option and thus it's an
introspective GUC rather than actual configuration, but as I recall that
argument does not hold for wal_segment_size. But at one point, even that
one was an introspective GUC too.)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, david@pgmasters.net, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com
Subject: Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
In-Reply-To: <20200701202535.GA26854@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox