| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2013-06-05 19:18:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1370459890.73150.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> I was not thinking of making it a hard limit. It would be just
> like checkpoint_segments from that point of view - if a
> checkpoint takes a long time, max_wal_size might still be
> exceeded.
Then I suggest we not use exactly that name. I feel quite sure we
would get complaints from people if something labeled as "max" was
exceeded -- especially if they set that to the actual size of a
filesystem dedicated to WAL files.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-06-05 19:24:48 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-05 19:07:56 | Re: Configurable location for extension .control files |