Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Japin Li
Subject Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level
Date
Msg-id MEYP282MB1669E34DF43FD3A0008FB76EB68B9@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 08:49, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul  5, 2022 at 08:02:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Precondition" is an overly fancy word that makes things less clear
>> not more so.  Does it mean that setting wal_level = minimal will fail
>> if you don't do these other things, or does it just mean that you
>> won't be getting the absolute minimum WAL volume?  If the former,
>> I think it'd be better to say something like "To set wal_level to minimal,
>> you must also set [these variables], which has the effect of disabling
>> both WAL archiving and streaming replication."
>
> I have created the attached patch to try to improve this text.

IMO we can add the following sentence for wal_level description, since
if wal_level = minimal and max_wal_senders > 0, we cannot start the database.

To set wal_level to minimal, you must also set max_wal_senders to 0,
which has the effect of disabling both WAL archiving and streaming
replication.

--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: EINTR in ftruncate()
Next
From: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns