Sorry for my very late answer. It's been a tough month. 2014-11-27 0:00 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us>:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:39:26PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > > It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously > stressed > > state, would be: > > > > greatest(1 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments, > > wal_keep_segments) + 1 + > > 2 * checkpoint_segments + 1 > > I don't think we can assume checkpoint_completion_target is at all > reliable enough to base a maximum calculation on, assuming anything > above the maximum is cause of concern and something to inform the admins > about. > > Assuming checkpoint_completion_target is 1 for maximum purposes, how > about: > > max(2 * checkpoint_segments, wal_keep_segments) + 2 * > checkpoint_segments + 2 > > Seems something I could agree on. At least, it makes sense, and it works for my customers. Although I'm wondering why "+ 2", and not "+ 1". It seems Jeff and you agree on this, so I may have misunderstood something. -- Guillaume. http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
