Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6479e9a4-0a9d-0772-0401-2c5d0de03ea7@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/17/20 5:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/07/14 20:30, David Steele wrote: >> On 7/14/20 12:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> >>> The patch was no longer applied cleanly because of recent commit. >>> So I updated the patch. Attached. >>> >>> Barring any objection, I will commit this patch. >> >> This doesn't look right: >> >> + the <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> most recent megabytes >> + WAL files plus one WAL file are >> >> How about: >> >> + <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of >> + WAL files plus one WAL file are > > Thanks for the comment! Isn't it better to keep "most recent" part? > If so, what about either of the followings? > > 1. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of WAL files plus > one WAL file that were most recently generated are kept all time. > > 2. <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes + <xref > linkend="guc-wal-segment-size"> bytes > of WAL files that were most recently generated are kept all time. "most recent" seemed implied to me, but I see your point. How about: + the most recent <xref linkend="guc-wal-keep-size"/> megabytes of + WAL files plus one additional WAL file are Regards, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: