Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Date: 2014-01-22 00:30:48
Message-ID: 21567.1390350648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> How are we supposed to wait while e.g. ProcArrayLock? Aborting
> transactions doesn't work either, that writes abort records which can
> get signficantly large.

Yeah, that's an interesting point ;-). We can't *either* commit or abort
without emitting some WAL, possibly quite a bit of WAL.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Harold Giménez 2014-01-22 00:32:44 Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-01-22 00:23:57 Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)