From: Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) <postgresql@mailpen.com>
To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Estimating wal_keep_size
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:36:24 -0700
Message-ID: <471a6e7d-928e-c899-bf9f-341ae79b04ea@mailpen.com> (raw)
Is this reasonable thinking?
I'd think that one would want a *wal_keep_size* to cover the pending
updates while the standby server might be unavailable, however long one
might anticipate that would be.
In my case, I get a complete replacement (in the form of "|"- delimited
ASCII files) of one of the SCHEMAs every Sunday. The size of that ASCII
data is about 2GB, so I'm thinking of doubling that to 4GB (256 WAL
files) to protect me in the case of the standby being unavailable during
the update. Note that a complete loss of both servers is not
catastrophic (I have backups); it would just be annoying.
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: postgresql@mailpen.com, pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Estimating wal_keep_size
In-Reply-To: <471a6e7d-928e-c899-bf9f-341ae79b04ea@mailpen.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