On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks! I almost forgot this patch.

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

Reply via email to