Guys,
> Hmm, I'm sorry but that's bogus. Retaining so much WAL that we are
> strongly in danger of blowing disk space is not what I would call a
> safety feature. Since there is no way to control or restrain the number
> of files for certain, that approach seems fatally flawed. Reducing
> checkpoint_timeout is the opposite of what you would want to do for
> performance.
Which WAL are we talking about here? There's 3 copies to worry about:
1) master WAL
2) the archive copy of WAL
3) slave WAL
--Josh Berkus
