From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:03:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4CC0F10D.3000201@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineXrnRAkRV4Cs=rmSo0QkWkFRVYQpj0AWXGn2=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201010220058.o9M0waa06053@momjian.us>
<4CC0E465.4000700@agliodbs.com>
<AANLkTineXrnRAkRV4Cs=rmSo0QkWkFRVYQpj0AWXGn2=@mail.gmail.com>
> I think it's pretty well explained in the fine manual.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-WAL-KEEP-SEGMENTS
Nope. No relationship to checkpoint_segments is explained there. Try
again?
>> 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.
>
> This assumes that more checkpoint segments is always better, which
> isn't true. I might have 100 GB of disk space free, but not want to
> replay WAL for 4 days if I have a crash.
No, it assumes no such thing.
--
-- 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, robertmhaas@gmail.com, bruce@momjian.us, gsstark@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
In-Reply-To: <4CC0F10D.3000201@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