| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Date: | 2018-07-30 08:43:20 |
| Message-ID: | d802e799-c699-01f7-906b-921f3b183be6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/07/2018 05:59, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> My result is that we cannot disable recycling perfectly just by
> setting min/max_wal_size.
Maybe the behavior of min_wal_size should be rethought? Elsewhere in
this thread, there was also a complaint that max_wal_size isn't actually
a max. It seems like there might be some interest in making these
settings more accurate.
I mean, what is the point of the min_wal_size setting if not controlling
this very thing?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-07-30 08:53:54 | Re: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-30 08:38:04 | Re: Making "COPY partitioned_table FROM" faster |