| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |
| Date: | 2017-03-07 16:16:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYy1oDM68Au_YK7_oLggkizY4YRBwrhqw7P36==en6RTg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3/6/17 17:16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What if we told pg_receivewal (or pg_receivexlog, whatever that is) a
>> maximum number of segments to retain before removing old ones? Like
>> pg_receivewal --limit-retained-segments=50GB, or something like that.
>
> That would be doable, but would it solve anyone's problem? I think
> pg_receivewal retention would usually be governed either by the
> available base backups, or by some time-based business metric.
Well, if the problem you're trying to solve is "retain WAL for as long
as possible without running out of disk space and having everything go
kablooey", then it would solve that problem, and I think that's a very
reasonable problem to want to solve.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-07 16:20:21 | Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-07 16:14:48 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |