| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming Replication and archiving |
| Date: | 2010-01-20 23:22:01 |
| Message-ID: | 22807.1264029721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Sure, but if the archived WAL segments are NOT needed, how are they
>> supposed to get deleted? It doesn't take long to run out of disk space
>> if they're not being rotated.
> From what I am seeing at the moment (8.5 devel from 2 days ago), the
> archived segments are not deleted at all (I have several hundred now
> after a number of pgbench runs over the last day or so).
Huh? *Archived* segments aren't supposed to get deleted, at least not
by any automatic Postgres action. It would be up to the DBA how long
he wants to keep them around.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-01-20 23:32:11 | Re: Streaming replication, retrying from archive |
| Previous Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2010-01-20 23:20:08 | WARNING: pgstat wait timeout |