"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> I guess it is a stretch to imagine that a database would have
> enough read-only connections to exhaust resources by holding open
> one deleted WAL file each; unless they have, say, 200 such
> connections and they're cutting things so close that a wasted 3.2GB
> of disk space at the WAL file location will run them out.
AFAIK, we rename and reuse old WAL segment files.
So, we don't waste disk space unless checkpoint_segments are too small.
Also, if you are worried about disk space,
how about adding ftruncate(to 0 byte) before unlink() ?
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
