Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Farina
Subject Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Date
Msg-id CAAZKuFYHvaawsrLrqHsfgfByvx-Fp_fv0mrC6WboNphGrejN9A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would oppose that as the solution, either an unconditional one, or
> configurable with is it as the default.  Those segments are not unneeded.  I
> need them.  That is why I set up archiving in the first place.  If you need
> to shut down the database rather than violate my established retention
> policy, then shut down the database.

Same boat.  My archives are the real storage.  The disks are
write-back caching.  That's because the storage of my archives is
probably three to five orders of magnitude more reliable.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning performance: cache stringToNode() of pg_constraint.ccbin