On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:24:15 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:15:13 -0500
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I looked into this, and came up with more questions. Why is
> > > > checkpoint_completion_target involved in the total number of WAL
> > > > segments? If checkpoint_completion_target is 0.5 (the default), the
> > > > calculation is:
> > > >
> > > > (2 + 0.5) * checkpoint_segments + 1
> > > >
> > > > while if it is 0.9, it is:
> > > >
> > > > (2 + 0.9) * checkpoint_segments + 1
> > > >
> > > > Is this trying to estimate how many WAL files are going to be
> > > > created during the checkpoint? If so, wouldn't it be (1 +
> > > > checkpoint_completion_target), not "2 +". My logic is you have the
> > > > old WAL files being checkpointed (that's the "1"), plus you have new WAL
> > > > files being created during the checkpoint, which would be
> > > > checkpoint_completion_target * checkpoint_segments, plus one for the
> > > > current WAL file.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WAL is not eligible to be recycled until there have been 2 successful
> > > > checkpoints.
> > > >
> > > > So at the end of a checkpoint, you have 1 cycle of WAL which has just
> > > > become eligible for recycling,
> > > > 1 cycle of WAL which is now expendable but which is kept anyway, and
> > > > checkpoint_completion_target worth of WAL which has occurred while the
> > > > checkpoint was occurring and is still needed for crash recovery.
> > >
> > > OK, so based on this analysis, what is the right calculation? This?
> > >
> > > (1 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1 +
> > > max(wal_keep_segments, checkpoint_segments)
> >
> > Now that we have min_wal_size and max_wal_size in 9.5, I don't see any
> > value to figuring out the proper formula for backpatching.
>
> I guess it worth backpatching the documentation as 9.4 -> 9.1 will be
> supported for somes the next 4 years
Sorry, lack of caffeine this morning. Fired the mail before correcting
and finishing it:
I guess it worth backpatching the documentation as 9.4 -> 9.1 will be supported
for some more years.
I'll give it a try this week.
Regards,
--
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Dalibo
http://www.dalibo.com
