Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

From: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size
Date: 2016-09-26 12:30:53
Message-ID: CAGz5QCK9WNW5BD1Gpo2Az=Bf=cQcY+FmHF1kx1mMUXjrkABe5Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160609.215558.118976703.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>
+1. I've tested after applying the patch. This clearly solves the problem.

--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-09-26 12:45:46 Re: Aggregate Push Down - Performing aggregation on foreign server
Previous Message David Steele 2016-09-26 12:22:22 Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol