From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments |
Date: | 2020-07-08 15:37:57 |
Message-ID: | 6e4f9605-97f3-7eba-f989-4ae41d637d2f@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/07/02 2:18, David Steele wrote:
> 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.
I attached the patch that renames wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
wal_keep_size_v1.patch | text/plain | 14.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-07-08 16:03:48 | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-07-08 15:10:03 | Re: pg_resetwal --next-transaction-id may cause database failed to restart. |