From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments |
Date: | 2020-07-01 17:18:06 |
Message-ID: | 455c81a2-faa0-3805-c862-aa5bf45125d9@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/1/20 10:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Jul-01, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> On 2020/07/01 12:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> On 2020-Jun-30, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I talked about max_slot_wal_keep_size as new feature in v13
>>>> at the conference, I received the question like "Why are the units of
>>>> setting values in max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments different?"
>>>> from audience. That difference looks confusing for users and
>>>> IMO it's better to use the same unit for them. Thought?
>>>
>>> Do we still need wal_keep_segments for anything?
>>
>> Yeah, personally I like wal_keep_segments because its setting is very
>> simple and no extra operations on replication slots are necessary.
>
> Okay. In that case I +1 the idea of renaming to wal_keep_size.
+1 for renaming to wal_keep_size.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-07-01 17:23:21 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-07-01 16:54:25 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |