Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2020-07-01T20:25:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Jul-01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We have the following wal*size GUC settings: > > SELECT name FROM pg_settings WHERE name LIKE '%wal%size%'; > name > ------------------------ > max_slot_wal_keep_size > max_wal_size > min_wal_size > wal_block_size > wal_segment_size > > Does wal_keep_size make sense here? I think it does. What do you think? Are you suggesting that "keep_wal_size" is better, since it's more in line with min/max? I lean towards no. (I think it's okay to conceptually separate these three options from wal_block_size, since that's a compile time option and thus it's an introspective GUC rather than actual configuration, but as I recall that argument does not hold for wal_segment_size. But at one point, even that one was an introspective GUC too.) -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
doc: Mention the rename of wal_keep_segments GUC in release note.
- 128fd0a65ae5 13.0 landed
-
Rename wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.
- f5dff45962ec 13.0 landed
- c3fe108c025e 14.0 landed