From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments |
Date: | 2020-07-17 11:24:07 |
Message-ID: | 6479e9a4-0a9d-0772-0401-2c5d0de03ea7@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/17/20 5:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/07/14 20:30, David Steele wrote:
>> On 7/14/20 12:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> The patch was no longer applied cleanly because of recent commit.
>>> So I updated the patch. Attached.
>>>
>>> Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.
>>
>> This doesn't look right:
>>
>> + the <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> most recent megabytes
>> + WAL files plus one WAL file are
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> + <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of
>> + WAL files plus one WAL file are
>
> Thanks for the comment! Isn't it better to keep "most recent" part?
> If so, what about either of the followings?
>
> 1. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of WAL files plus
> one WAL file that were most recently generated are kept all time.
>
> 2. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes + <xref
> linkend="guc-wal-segment-size"> bytes
> of WAL files that were most recently generated are kept all time.
"most recent" seemed implied to me, but I see your point.
How about:
+ the most recent <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of
+ WAL files plus one additional WAL file are
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-07-17 11:56:36 | Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement For Copy From Binary Files |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-07-17 11:04:44 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |