"Kevin Grittner" <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess it is a stretch to imagine that a database would have > enough read-only connections to exhaust resources by holding open > one deleted WAL file each; unless they have, say, 200 such > connections and they're cutting things so close that a wasted 3.2GB > of disk space at the WAL file location will run them out.
AFAIK, we rename and reuse old WAL segment files. So, we don't waste disk space unless checkpoint_segments are too small. Also, if you are worried about disk space, how about adding ftruncate(to 0 byte) before unlink() ? Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
