On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 *
>> wal_segment_size.
>> This should probably be made friendlier in some way.  But it also shows
>> that bigger WAL segment sizes are apparently not well-chartered
>> territory lately.
> Well, there can be multiple solutions to this problem.
> 1. If somebody intends to increase wal segment size, he should
> increase max_wal_size accordingly.
> 2. In recovery test, we can add some delay before taking backup so
> that the pending logs in the buffer
> gets flushed. (Not a good solution)
> 3. In CreateRestartPoint() method, we can force a XLogFlush to update
> minRecoveryPoint.

IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?

[1] - 

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to