Re: min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted
| От | Guillaume Lelarge |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAECtzeUAmmGhu3XxyEfp9mAEnUa23nsjiRodbKStvpUNHwCt7Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted (Marc Rechté <marc4@rechte.fr>) |
| Ответы |
Re: min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Le jeu. 7 mai 2020 à 11:13, Marc Rechté <marc4@rechte.fr> a écrit :
Hello,
It is possible to startup an instance with min > max, without the system
complaining:
mrechte=# show min_wal_size ;
2020-05-07 11:12:11.422 CEST [11098] LOG: durée : 0.279 ms
min_wal_size
--------------
128MB
(1 ligne)
mrechte=# show max_wal_size ;
2020-05-07 11:12:12.814 CEST [11098] LOG: durée : 0.275 ms
max_wal_size
--------------
64MB
(1 ligne)
This could be an issue ?
I don't see how this could be an issue. You'll get a checkpoint every time 64MB have been written before checkpoint_timeout kicked in. And WAL files will be removed if you have more than 128MB of them.
Not the smartest configuration, but not a damaging one either.
--
Guillaume.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: