On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to
> deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause
> up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal's instance,
> while max_wal_size is set at 128MB. The only test in the code tree in
> need of wal_keep_segments is actually pg_rewind, which enforces
> checkpoints after the rewind to update the source's control file.
>
> So, thoughts about the attached that reworks this portion of PostgresNode.pm?
Committed.
Besides the resource usage, it would probably be bad if a
wal_keep_segments setting papered over problems with replication slots
for example.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers