Greetings, On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:58 Marc <postg...@arcict.com> wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2022, at 17:17, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > - Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote: > > On 2022-Mar-22, Shukla, Pranjal wrote: > > Are there any disadvantages of increasing the “wal_keep_segments” to a > higher number say, 500? Will it have any impact on performance of > streaming replication, on primary or secondary servers? > > No. It just means WAL will occupy more disk space. I've seen people go > even as high as 5000 with no issues. > > Yeah, though it makes the primary into essentially a WAL repository and, > really, you'd be better off having a dedicated repo that replicas can > pull from instead. Consider that a replica might fall way behind and > then demand the primary send 5000 WAL segments to it. The primary then > has to go pull that 80GB of data from disk and send it across the > network. As to if that's an issue or not depends on the IOPS and > bandwidth available, of course, but it's not free. > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > Hello Stephen, > > How do you see a setup with a ‘a dedicated repo that replicas can pull > from’ ? > > Thanks in advance for the clarification. > I’d suggest checking out pgbackrest. There are other options out there but that’s my favorite (probably because I also am one of the folks involved in its development, full disclosure). Thanks, Stephen >
