On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote: > I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to > deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause > up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal's instance, > while max_wal_size is set at 128MB. The only test in the code tree in > need of wal_keep_segments is actually pg_rewind, which enforces > checkpoints after the rewind to update the source's control file. > > So, thoughts about the attached that reworks this portion of PostgresNode.pm?
Committed. Besides the resource usage, it would probably be bad if a wal_keep_segments setting papered over problems with replication slots for example. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers