On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I am wondering a bit about interaction with wal_keep_segments. > One thing is that wal_keep_segments is still specified in number of segments > and not size units, maybe it would be worth to change it also? > And the other thing is that, if set, the wal_keep_segments is the real > max_wal_size from the user perspective (not from perspective of the > algorithm in this patch, but user does not really care about that) which is > somewhat weird given the naming.
It seems like wal_keep_segments is more closely related to wal_*min*_size. The idea of both settings is that each is a minimum amount of WAL we want to keep around for some purpose. But they're not quite the same, I guess, because wal_min_size just forces us to keep that many files around - they can be overwritten whenever. wal_keep_segments is an amount of actual WAL data we want to keep around. Would it make sense to require that wal_keep_segments <= wal_min_size? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
