[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size
From:       Michael Paquier <michael.paquier () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-09-30 14:13:23
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTVWnX3ANFBWtBGheYo7XeBaHKpOmtp0WkWUhoRx7dL4Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> > <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint
> > > > correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you?
> > > > 
> > > > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160609.215558.118976703.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
> > > >  
> > > +1. I've tested after applying the patch. This clearly solves the problem.
> > 
> > Even if many things have been discussed on this thread,
> > Horiguchi-san's first patch is still the best approach found after
> > several lookups and attempts when messing with the recovery code.
> 
> What is the status of that patch then?  The above thread seems to have
> stopped.

The conclusion is to use the original patch proposed by Horiguchi-san,
and with a test case I have added you get that:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTv5gmKQcNDoFGTGqoqXz2xLz4RRw247oqOJzZTVy6-7Q%40mail.gmail.com
                
-- 
Michael


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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]