From: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments |
Date: | 2020-07-03 07:54:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+fd4k7SHWxJ+z7=vE9ZYGstNCBxTQ_2jWZcJH2USYspH6dCZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 02:18, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> 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.
>
+1 from me, too.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-07-03 08:01:57 | Re: Cleanup - adjust the code crossing 80-column window limit |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2020-07-03 07:29:17 | Re: Persist MVCC forever - retain history |