On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:31 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, I'm sorry but that's bogus. Retaining so much WAL that we are
> > strongly in danger of blowing disk space is not what I would call a
> > safety feature. Since there is no way to control or restrain the number
> > of files for certain, that approach seems fatally flawed. Reducing
> > checkpoint_timeout is the opposite of what you would want to do for
> > performance.
>
> Why do you worry about that only in the standby?
I don't. The "safety feature" we just added makes it much more likely
that this will happen on standby.
> To improve the situation, I think that we need to use
> checkpoint_segment/timeout as a trigger of restartpoint, regardless
> of the checkpoint record. Though I'm not sure that is possible and
> should be included in v9.0.
Yes, that is a simple change. I think it is needed now.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
