| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s? |
| Date: | 2014-02-01 23:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_WQ9B+wZZrJC4=erJqqmf=NHS+SMoOZfORL=mYK=MNBRQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Something like wal_writer_delay=600s would be ideal, I can afford to
> loose a 10min of data, but can't afford to get a corrupted database
> after power loss.
What Postgres version? The WAL Writer will hibernate on Postgres 9.2+.
walwriter.c says:
/*
* Number of do-nothing loops before lengthening the delay time, and the
* multiplier to apply to WalWriterDelay when we do decide to hibernate.
* (Perhaps these need to be configurable?)
*/
#define LOOPS_UNTIL_HIBERNATE 50
#define HIBERNATE_FACTOR 25
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-01 23:52:35 | Re: Why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s? |
| Previous Message | Clemens Eisserer | 2014-02-01 23:40:12 | Re: Why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s? |