At Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:59:26 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20180719.125926.257896670.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:37:26 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in > <20180719.123726.00899102.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:01:03 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > > wrote in > > <CA+Tgmob0hs=ez7rqutlzyuwauhtgorvpxjnxgifz04he-jk...@mail.gmail.com> > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > The actual implementation could use another round of consideration. I > > > > wonder how this should interact with min_wal_size. Wouldn't > > > > min_wal_size = 0 already do what we need (if you could set it to 0, > > > > which is currently not possible)? > > > > > > Hmm, would that actually disable recycling, or just make it happen only > > > rarely? > > > > It doens't. Instead setting max_wal_size smaller than checkpoint > > interval should do that. > > And that's wrong. It makes checkpoint unreasonably frequent. > > My result is that we cannot disable recycling perfectly just by > setting min/max_wal_size.
s/result/conclusion/; regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
