Guys, > Hmm, I'm sorry but that's bogus. Retaining so much WAL that we are > strongly in danger of blowing disk space is not what I would call a > safety feature. Since there is no way to control or restrain the number > of files for certain, that approach seems fatally flawed. Reducing > checkpoint_timeout is the opposite of what you would want to do for > performance.
Which WAL are we talking about here? There's 3 copies to worry about: 1) master WAL 2) the archive copy of WAL 3) slave WAL --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
