At Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:37:26 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in
<20180719.123726.00899102.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> At Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:01:03 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
<CA+Tgmob0hs=eZ7RquTLzYUwAuHtgORvPxjNXgifZ04he-JK7Rw@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > The actual implementation could use another round of consideration. I
> > > wonder how this should interact with min_wal_size. Wouldn't
> > > min_wal_size = 0 already do what we need (if you could set it to 0,
> > > which is currently not possible)?
> >
> > Hmm, would that actually disable recycling, or just make it happen only rarely?
>
> It doens't. Instead setting max_wal_size smaller than checkpoint
> interval should do that.
And that's wrong. It makes checkpoint unreasonably frequent.
My result is that we cannot disable recycling perfectly just by
setting min/max_wal_size.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center