From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:02:50 +0900
Message-ID: <6ff0e503-8bd6-e70f-87bf-fb8389d61f5c@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc4768f2-1eff-d2fc-35ba-6b2985b7cb6c@oss.nttdata.com>
References: <6e4f9605-97f3-7eba-f989-4ae41d637d2f@oss.nttdata.com>
<20200709.134743.1136524996274963021.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
<866c681c-3082-7010-cc9e-bf3b9483c991@oss.nttdata.com>
<20200713.160111.1304073320526166244.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
<d8d60d1a-5233-cbcc-099d-ee34033ea619@oss.nttdata.com>
<87269252-772e-2daf-9955-674a24e24de6@pgmasters.net>
<efffe8f2-63ea-fe8c-68db-244aa27a63ef@oss.nttdata.com>
<6479e9a4-0a9d-0772-0401-2c5d0de03ea7@pgmasters.net>
<dc4768f2-1eff-d2fc-35ba-6b2985b7cb6c@oss.nttdata.com>
On 2020/07/20 13:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/07/17 20:24, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/20 5:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020/07/14 20:30, David Steele wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/20 12:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch was no longer applied cleanly because of recent commit.
>>>>> So I updated the patch. Attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't look right:
>>>>
>>>> + the <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> most recent megabytes
>>>> + WAL files plus one WAL file are
>>>>
>>>> How about:
>>>>
>>>> + <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of
>>>> + WAL files plus one WAL file are
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comment! Isn't it better to keep "most recent" part?
>>> If so, what about either of the followings?
>>>
>>> 1. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of WAL files plus
>>> one WAL file that were most recently generated are kept all time.
>>>
>>> 2. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes + <xref linkend="guc-wal-segment-size"> bytes
>>> of WAL files that were most recently generated are kept all time.
>>
>> "most recent" seemed implied to me, but I see your point.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> + the most recent <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of
>> + WAL files plus one additional WAL file are
>
> I adopted this and pushed the patch. Thanks!
>
> Also we need to update the release note for v13. What about adding the following?
>
> ------------------------------------
> Rename configuration parameter wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.
>
> This allows how much WAL files to retain for the standby server, by bytes instead of the number of files.
> If you previously used wal_keep_segments, the following formula will give you an approximately equivalent setting:
>
> wal_keep_size = wal_keep_segments * wal_segment_size (typically 16MB)
> ------------------------------------
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachments:wal_keep_size_release_note_v1.patch (text/plain, 1.1K) downloaddiff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-13.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-13.sgmlindex 22363a186b..c3698c1401 100644--- a/doc/src/sgml/release-13.sgml+++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-13.sgml@@ -209,6 +209,28 @@ Author: Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>
<listitem>
<!--
+Author: Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>+2020-07-20 [f5dff45962] Rename wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.+-->++ <para>+ Rename configuration parameter <varname>wal_keep_segments</varname>+ to <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> (Fujii Masao)+ </para>++ <para>+ This allows how much WAL files to retain for the standby server,+ to be specified by bytes instead of the number of files. If you+ previously used <varname>wal_keep_segments</varname>,+ the following formula will give you an approximately equivalent setting:+<programlisting>+wal_keep_size = wal_keep_segments * wal_segment_size (typically 16MB)+</programlisting>+ </para>+ </listitem>++ <listitem>+<!--
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-03-05 [84eca14bc] Remove ancient hacks to ignore certain opclass names in
-->
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: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, david@pgmasters.net, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
In-Reply-To: <6ff0e503-8bd6-e70f-87bf-fb8389d61f5c@oss.nttdata.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