| From: | "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql(at)mailpen(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Estimating wal_keep_size |
| Date: | 2021-06-17 00:36:24 |
| Message-ID: | 471a6e7d-928e-c899-bf9f-341ae79b04ea@mailpen.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Is this reasonable thinking?
I'd think that one would want a *wal_keep_size* to cover the pending
updates while the standby server might be unavailable, however long one
might anticipate that would be.
In my case, I get a complete replacement (in the form of "|"- delimited
ASCII files) of one of the SCHEMAs every Sunday. The size of that ASCII
data is about 2GB, so I'm thinking of doubling that to 4GB (256 WAL
files) to protect me in the case of the standby being unavailable during
the update. Note that a complete loss of both servers is not
catastrophic (I have backups); it would just be annoying.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-06-17 01:02:22 | Re: Estimating wal_keep_size |
| Previous Message | Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) | 2021-06-16 16:30:24 | Re: PostgreSQL V13 Replication Issue |