From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | b1000101(at)pm(dot)me, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size unit is not specified |
Date: | 2021-11-23 14:21:05 |
Message-ID: | 202111231421.zybfdpc5pyln@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2021-Nov-22, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The unit (I assume it's MB) of max_slot_wal_keep_size is not explicitly
> specified in the docs. If it's intentional then please, disregards, but I've
> not been able to deduct that from this page alone. Thanks!
Well, that's embarrasing. I'll see about fixing it.
It is a size-based unit. You would typically specify some unit (say,
MB) together with the number; internally, because the way this works is
in terms of whole files, it is rounded down to an integer number of WAL
segments. If you don't specify a unit, it is taken to be a number of
megabytes.
I wonder why did we make it round down rather than up. Does this mean
that if you have max_slot_wal_keep_size=8MB and wal segments of 16 MB,
the slot gets invalidated with more than zero reserved segments?
Thanks for reporting.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I'm impressed how quickly you are fixing this obscure issue. I came from
MS SQL and it would be hard for me to put into words how much of a better job
you all are doing on [PostgreSQL]."
Steve Midgley, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-08/msg00000.php
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-11-23 16:06:32 | Re: ORDER BY in materialized view example? |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-11-23 10:28:11 | Re: Triggers on underlying tables of updatable views |