On 2020/07/09 13:47, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Thu, 9 Jul 2020 00:37:57 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>
wrote in
On 2020/07/02 2:18, David Steele wrote:
On 7/1/20 10:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jul-01, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/07/01 12:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-30, Fujii Masao wrote:
When I talked about max_slot_wal_keep_size as new feature in v13
at the conference, I received the question like "Why are the units of
setting values in max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
different?"
from audience. That difference looks confusing for users and
IMO it's better to use the same unit for them. Thought?
Do we still need wal_keep_segments for anything?
Yeah, personally I like wal_keep_segments because its setting is very
simple and no extra operations on replication slots are necessary.
Okay. In that case I +1 the idea of renaming to wal_keep_size.
+1 for renaming to wal_keep_size.
I attached the patch that renames wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.
It fails on 019_replslot_limit.pl for uncertain reason to me..
I could not reproduce this...
@@ -11323,7 +11329,7 @@ do_pg_stop_backup(char *labelfile, bool waitforarchive,
TimeLineID *stoptli_p)
* If archiving is enabled, wait for all the required WAL files to be
* archived before returning. If archiving isn't enabled, the required
WAL
* needs to be transported via streaming replication (hopefully with
- * wal_keep_segments set high enough), or some more exotic mechanism
like
+ * wal_keep_size set high enough), or some more exotic mechanism like
* polling and copying files from pg_wal with script. We have no
knowledge
Isn't this time a good chance to mention replication slots?
+1 to do that. But I found there are other places where replication slots
need to be mentioned. So I think it's better to do this as separate patch.
- "ALTER SYSTEM SET wal_keep_segments to 8; SELECT pg_reload_conf();");
+ "ALTER SYSTEM SET wal_keep_size to '128MB'; SELECT pg_reload_conf();");
wal_segment_size to 1MB here so, that conversion is not correct.
(However, that test works as long as it is more than
max_slot_wal_keep_size so it's practically no problem.)
So I changed 128MB to 8MB. Is this OK?
I attached the updated version of the patch upthread.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
