Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YHbr-akKkz+aAN65SyWGfFivdR=NKKUmJmH7XDiWBGj=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 31 October 2017 at 17:43, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello, this is a rebased version.
>
> It gets a change of the meaning of monitoring value along with
> rebasing.
>
> In previous version, the "live" column mysteriously predicts the
> necessary segments will be kept or lost by the next checkpoint
> and the "distance" offered a still more mysterious value.

Would it make sense to teach xlogreader how to fetch from WAL archive,
too? That way if there's an archive, slots could continue to be used
even after we purge from local pg_xlog, albeit at a performance cost.

I'm thinking of this mainly for logical slots.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods