From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:09:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4CC0E465.4000700@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201010220058.o9M0waa06053@momjian.us>
References: <201010220058.o9M0waa06053@momjian.us>
>> Very true. But the lack of a -1 setting for wal_keep_segments means
>> that if you would like to take a backup without archiving, you must
>> set wal_keep_segments to a value greater than or equal to the rate at
>> which you generate WAL segments multiplied by the time it takes you to
>> run a backup. If that doesn't qualify as requiring arcane knowledge,
>> I'm mystified as to what ever could.
Speaking of which, what's the relationship between checkpoint_segments
and wal_keep_segments? PG seems perfectly willing to let me set the
latter higher than the former, and it's not documented.
If checkpoint_segments were a hard limit, then we could let admins set
wal_keep_segments to -1, knowing that they'd set checkpoint_segments to
the max space they had available.
Although we might want to rename those.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
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: josh@agliodbs.com, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, gsstark@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
In-Reply-To: <4CC0E465.4000700@agliodbs.com>
* 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