| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Saul Perdomo <saul(dot)perdomo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Brindusa <paulbrindusa88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return of the pg_wal issue.. |
| Date: | 2025-01-23 16:07:26 |
| Message-ID: | f1ad892c-43fb-4c4b-96f3-01f71ae4f4bf@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 1/23/25 06:51, Saul Perdomo wrote:
> This is why everybody will tell you "don't just delete these files,
> archive them properly!" Again, for operational purposes, you could just
> delete them. But you really want to make a /copy /of them before you
> do... you know, /just in case /something bad happens to your DB that
> makes you want to roll it back in time.
No you can't just delete them for operational purposes without knowledge
of whether they are still needed or not.
Per:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-intro.html
and
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-configuration.html
Short version, a WAL file must remain until a checkpoint is done that
makes it's content no longer needed.
> Cheers
> Saul
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2025-01-23 16:38:02 | Re: Records count mismatch with logical replication |
| Previous Message | Paul Brindusa | 2025-01-23 15:56:48 | Re: Return of the pg_wal issue.. |