Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1z4kq-8+GPounmqqtyRJ-4+Uxf0-2NAzY=Mtq73+g6FrQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:

Everyone seems to be happy with the names and behaviour of the GUCs, so committed.


The docs suggest that max_wal_size will be respected during archive recovery (causing restartpoints and recycling), but I'm not seeing that happening.  Is this a doc bug or an implementation bug?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about TEMP tables
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Moving Pivotal's Greenplum work upstream