On 2020-Jun-24, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/06/24 8:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think we should publish the value from wal_keep_segments separately
> > from max_slot_wal_keep_size. ISTM that the user might decide to change
> > or remove wal_keep_segments and be suddenly at risk of losing slots
> > because of overlooking that it was wal_keep_segments, not
> > max_slot_wal_keep_size, that was protecting them.
>
> You mean to have two functions that returns
>
> 1. "current WAL LSN - wal_keep_segments * 16MB"
> 2. "current WAL LSN - max_slot_wal_keep_size"
Hmm, but all the values there are easily findable. What would be the
point in repeating it?
Maybe we should disregard this line of thinking and go back to
Horiguchi-san's original proposal, to wit use the "distance to
breakage", as also supported now by Amit Kapila[1] (unless I
misunderstand him).
[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1L2oJ7T1cESdc5w4J9L3Q_hhvWqTigdAXKfnsJy4=v13w@mail.gmail.com
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
