On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:09 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> My immediate reaction is that 3% is a mighty small margin for error. > I don't know exactly how max_slot_wal_keep_size is enforced these > days, but in the past restrictions like that were implemented by > deciding during a checkpoint whether to unlink a no-longer-needed WAL > file (if we had too much WAL) or rename/recycle it to become a future > WAL segment (if not). So you could overshoot the specified target by > more or less the amount of WAL that could be emitted between two > checkpoints. Perhaps it's tighter nowadays, but I really doubt that > it's exact-to-the-kilobyte-at-all-times. > In this case, the total volume size was 60GB and we had the parameter set to 58GB but I imagine that can still be overwhelmed quickly. Maybe we should target a 20% buffer zone? We have wal_keep_size defaulted at 0. Thanks, Don. -- Don Seiler www.seiler.us
