Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSeiE+FtO-s=5kQ-LhRtGQ2HSpDigw92p90Uw60Sxp4_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers



On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

On 06/05/2013 05:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
OTOH, if we use max_wal_size as a hard limit, we can avoid such PANIC
error and long down time. Of course, in this case, once max_wal_size is
reached, we cannot complete any query writing WAL until the checkpoint
has completed and removed old WAL files. During that time, the database
service looks like down from a client, but its down time is shorter than the
PANIC error case. So I'm thinking that some users might want the hard
limit of pg_xlog size.

I wonder if we could tie this in with the recent proposal from the
Heroku guys to have a way to slow down WAL writing.  Maybe we have
several limits:

I didn't see that proposal, link? Because the idea of slowing down wal-writing sounds insane.
Here it is:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQcyNxvPaskr-pxm8DeqH7_qevW7uqbhPCsg1FpSxKpoQ@mail.gmail.com
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Next
From: Daniel Farina
Date:
Subject: Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments