From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pluzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_wal_size |
Date: | 2020-06-02 19:35:47 |
Message-ID: | 20200602193547.GA26240@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:21:14PM +0300, p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru wrote:
> WAL |-----------|-----+-----|-----+-----|-----+----->
>
> a b c
> CP +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
> b e b e b e
>
> Checkpointer process for point A starts at a(b) and ends at a(e).
> At the end of the work, CP makes a WAL record(plus symbol on WAL line).
>
> Back to the max_wal_size description:
> "Maximum size to let the WAL grow to between automatic WAL checkpoints."
>
> As I understand now, this is true when we talk about the checkpoint as a
> process.
> "Maximum size to let the WAL grow to between a(b) and b(e), between b(b) and c
> (e), etc".
What if we say:
"Maximum size to let the WAL grow during automatic WAL checkpoints."
That highlights the "process" part.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2020-06-02 20:42:01 | Re: max_wal_size |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-02 16:07:17 | Re: Adding xreflable |