Thank you for the comment.
At Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:47:20 -0500, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<ac510b45-7805-7ccc-734c-1b38a6645f3e@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 3/1/17 19:54, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >> Please measure it in size, not in number of segments.
> > It was difficult to dicide which is reaaonable but I named it
> > after wal_keep_segments because it has the similar effect.
> >
> > In bytes(or LSN)
> > max_wal_size
> > min_wal_size
> > wal_write_flush_after
> >
> > In segments
> > wal_keep_segments
>
> We have been moving away from measuring in segments. For example,
> checkpoint_segments was replaced by max_wal_size.
>
> Also, with the proposed patch that allows changing the segment size more
> easily, this will become more important. (I wonder if that will require
> wal_keep_segments to change somehow.)
Agreed. It is 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' in the new version.
wal_keep_segments might should be removed someday.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
