| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "James Pang (chaolpan)" <chaolpan(at)cisco(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max_wal_size and wal_keep_size |
| Date: | 2022-08-30 17:29:17 |
| Message-ID: | d56da8fc92109960f24fb805e17d1be5fe5d0adb.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 08:29 +0000, James Pang (chaolpan) wrote:
> We want keep more wal to give more room for data replication, in case of some delay ,
> and need old wal data. So wan to set wal_keep_size , and want to increase
> max_wal-size a lot to make max_wal_size > wal_keep_size (it may > 1TB).
The two parameters are independent:
- "max_wal_size" does *not* determine the maximum WAL size, but how much
WAL can be produced before the next checkpoint is triggered.
- "wal_keep_size" determines how much old WAL is kept around.
Set "wal_keep_size" and leave "max_wal_size" unchanged.
Or even better, use a replication slot.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teja Jakkidi | 2022-08-30 21:21:50 | Re: Performance issue after creating partitions |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2022-08-30 16:20:03 | Re: Two PostgreSQL instances returning different output for same query |