On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 3/4/17 02:09, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Well, that's one reason why I was thinking that having an independent >>> in-core option to clean up the tail of the oldest segments is >>> interesting: users don't need to maintain their own infra logic to do >>> anything. Now this end-segment command can as well be used with a >>> small binary doing this cleanup, but the monitoring of the thing gets >>> harder as multiple processes get spawned. >> >> I think the initial idea of having an option that does something >> specific is better than an invitation to run a general shell command. I >> have some doubts that the proposal to clean up old segments based on >> file system space is workable. For example, that assumes that you are >> the only one operating on the file system. If something else fills up >> the file system, this system could then be induced to clean up >> everything immediately, without any reference to what you still need. >> Also, the various man pages about statvfs() that I found are pretty >> pessimistic about how portable it is.
You can count Windows in that. > What if we told pg_receivewal (or pg_receivexlog, whatever that is) a > maximum number of segments to retain before removing old ones? Like > pg_receivewal --limit-retained-segments=50GB, or something like that. That's of course doable as well by counting the entries available. Now one reason why I did not do that is because in my case the archiver is started as a service using a fixed script, and the size to retain can be flexible as users can decide the VM size at deployment :) Having this option would be better than nothing, just that it is not that flexible if you think about it. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers