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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers