Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: jgdr@dalibo.com
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, michael@paquier.xyz, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, sk@zsrv.org, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Date: 2020-01-23T12:33:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
At Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:28:54 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in 
> > In the same function, I think that setting restBytes to -1 when
> > "useless" is bad style.  I would just leave that variable alone when the
> > returned status is not one that receives the number of bytes.  So the
> > caller is only entitled to read the value if the returned enum value is
> > such-and-such ("keeping" and "streaming" I think).
> 
> That is the only condition. If max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1, The value
> is useless for the two states.  I added that explanation to the
> comment of Get(Lsn)Walavailability().

The reply is bogus since restBytes is no longer a parameter of
GetWalAvailability following the next comment.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Commits

  1. Save slot's restart_lsn when invalidated due to size

  2. Fix checkpoint signalling

  3. Check slot->restart_lsn validity in a few more places

  4. Allow users to limit storage reserved by replication slots

  5. Remove header noise from test_decoding test

  6. Rework WAL-reading supporting structs

  7. Flip argument order in XLogSegNoOffsetToRecPtr