| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 17:24:48 |
| Message-ID: | 26273.1287768288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> What would be sensible for DBAs is to have two settings:
> max_wal_size
> min_wal_size
[ scratches head... ] What's the functional effect of min_wal_size, exactly?
> Even better would be to replace min_wal_size with min_wal_time, which
> would set a time span for the oldest WAL segment to be kept (up to
> max_wal_size - 2). Hmmm. That doesn't seem that hard to implement.
> Is it?
Um, what happens when honoring min_wal_time conflicts with honoring
max_wal_size?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-22 17:34:07 | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Previous Message | Marios Vodas | 2010-10-22 17:19:49 | Re: gist DatumGetPointer returns pointer to corrupted data |