Re: Temporary WAL segments files not cleaned up after an instancecrash
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Temporary WAL segments files not cleaned up after an instancecrash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180712074445.GE7352@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Temporary WAL segments files not cleaned up after an instancecrash (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Temporary WAL segments files not cleaned up after an instancecrash
Re: Temporary WAL segments files not cleaned up after an instancecrash |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:35:53PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > I think it makes sense to remove unnecessary temporary WAL files although > I'm not sure how high the risk of ENOSPC is. It depends on how close to the partition size limit max_wal_size is set, and how much a system is unstable. Switching on/off a VM where Postgres is located can participate in that, as well as VM snapshots taken without memory (I work a lot on those as you can guess :D). Setting it to 70% of the partition size is what I imagine is the base, but I can imagine as well people setting it at 90% or more. Still the probability is low, which is why I think that it would make sense to just fix the problem on HEAD and move on. > One little thing I noticed is the function name "RemoveXLogTempFiles". > Other similar functions are named as RemoveOldXlogFiles or RemoveXlogFile > (using Xlog not XLog), so it seem to me more consistent to rename this > "RemoveXlogTempFiles" or "RemoveTempXlogFiles" and so on. I see, a lower-case for Xlog instead of XLog. That makes sense. I have used your second suggestion in the attached. I have also changed the thing so as the format of the comment block is better even after indenting. Thoughts? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: