Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
| От | Joshua D. Drake |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 51AFDF45.7080903@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/05/2013 05:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> OTOH, if we use max_wal_size as a hard limit, we can avoid such PANIC >> error and long down time. Of course, in this case, once max_wal_size is >> reached, we cannot complete any query writing WAL until the checkpoint >> has completed and removed old WAL files. During that time, the database >> service looks like down from a client, but its down time is shorter than the >> PANIC error case. So I'm thinking that some users might want the hard >> limit of pg_xlog size. > > I wonder if we could tie this in with the recent proposal from the > Heroku guys to have a way to slow down WAL writing. Maybe we have > several limits: I didn't see that proposal, link? Because the idea of slowing down wal-writing sounds insane. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: