From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
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 08:21:46 -0400
Message-ID: <8b385d28-cb4e-25b2-4fcd-c5b30dd5a9a3@pgmasters.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ff0e503-8bd6-e70f-87bf-fb8389d61f5c@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>
<6ff0e503-8bd6-e70f-87bf-fb8389d61f5c@oss.nttdata.com>
On 7/20/20 6:02 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> 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)
>> ------------------------------------
I would rework that first sentence a bit. How about:
+ This determines how much WAL to retain for the standby server,
+ specified in megabytes rather than number of files.
The rest looks fine to me.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
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: david@pgmasters.net, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
In-Reply-To: <8b385d28-cb4e-25b2-4fcd-c5b30dd5a9a3@pgmasters.net>
* 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