Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Date
Msg-id 22600.1314989545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to WAL "low watermark" during base backup  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Attached patch implements a "low watermark wal location" in the
> walsender shmem array. Setting this value in a walsender prevents
> transaction log removal prior to this point - similar to how
> wal_keep_segments work, except with an absolute number rather than
> relative. For now, this is set when running a base backup with WAL
> included - to prevent the required WAL to be recycled away while the
> backup is running, without having to guestimate the value for
> wal_keep_segments. (There could be other ways added to set it in the
> future, but that's the only one I've done for now)

I agree with that parenthetical remark, ie that we'll probably consider
other uses for this in future, so I'd suggest changing this one comment:

> +  * Also check if there any in-progress base backup that has set
> +  * a low watermark preventing us from removing it.

Just say "if any WAL sender has a low watermark that prevents us from
removing it".

Looks reasonably sane otherwise, modulo Jaime's comment about the
missing reset step.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core?