Prev: [HACKERS] pg_filedump strangeness
Next: pgsql: Forbid using pg_xlogfile_name() andpg_xlogfile_name_offset()
From: Robert Haas on 15 Apr 2010 18:13
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've realized another problem with this patch.  standby_keep_segments
>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes
>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all.  And of course, a
>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby
>> server as one that uses streaming replication.  So at a minimum, the
>> name of this GUC is very confusing.
>
> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow
> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions?

I sort of feel like the correct description is something like
num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long. The actual
behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.

....Robert

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

From: Robert Haas on 16 Apr 2010 21:47
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I've realized another problem with this patch.  standby_keep_segments
>>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes
>>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all.  And of course, a
>>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby
>>> server as one that uses streaming replication.  So at a minimum, the
>>> name of this GUC is very confusing.
>>
>> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow
>> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions?
>
> I sort of feel like the correct description is something like
> num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long.  The actual
> behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.

<thinks more>

How about wal_keep_segments?

....Robert

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

From: Robert Haas on 19 Apr 2010 20:55
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I've realized another problem with this patch.  standby_keep_segments
>>>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes
>>>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all.  And of course, a
>>>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby
>>>> server as one that uses streaming replication.  So at a minimum, the
>>>> name of this GUC is very confusing.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow
>>> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> I sort of feel like the correct description is something like
>> num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long.  The actual
>> behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.
>
> <thinks more>
>
> How about wal_keep_segments?

Here's the patch.

....Robert
From: Fujii Masao on 20 Apr 2010 05:53
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about wal_keep_segments?

+1

> Here's the patch.

Seems OK.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

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

From: Robert Haas on 20 Apr 2010 07:15
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How about wal_keep_segments?
>
> +1
>
>> Here's the patch.
>
> Seems OK.

Thanks, committed.

....Robert

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

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: [HACKERS] pg_filedump strangeness
Next: pgsql: Forbid using pg_xlogfile_name() andpg_xlogfile_name_offset()