Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
Date
Msg-id 6e4f9605-97f3-7eba-f989-4ae41d637d2f@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments
List pgsql-hackers

On 2020/07/02 2:18, David Steele wrote:
> On 7/1/20 10:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2020-Jul-01, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020/07/01 12:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> On 2020-Jun-30, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When I talked about max_slot_wal_keep_size as new feature in v13
>>>>> at the conference, I received the question like "Why are the units of
>>>>> setting values in max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_segments different?"
>>>>> from audience. That difference looks confusing for users and
>>>>> IMO it's better to use the same unit for them. Thought?
>>>>
>>>> Do we still need wal_keep_segments for anything?
>>>
>>> Yeah, personally I like wal_keep_segments because its setting is very
>>> simple and no extra operations on replication slots are necessary.
>>
>> Okay.  In that case I +1 the idea of renaming to wal_keep_size.
> 
> +1 for renaming to wal_keep_size.

I attached the patch that renames wal_keep_segments to wal_keep_size.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_resetwal --next-transaction-id may cause database failed to restart.
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility