Robert Haas wrote: > > However the user-unfriendliness isn't the fact that administrators > > need to determine how much disk they're willing to dedicate to > > Postgres. The user-unfriendliness is that they then have to specify > > this in terms of WAL log files and also have to know that we sometimes > > keep more than that and so on. > > > > We've done a good job in the past of converting GUC variables to > > meaningful units for administrators and users but it's an ongoing > > effort. If we need a GUC to control the amount of disk space we use it > > should be in units of MB/GB/TB. If we need a GUC for controlling how > > much WAL history to keep for recovering standbys or replicas then it > > should be specified in units of time. > > > > Units like "number of wal files" or worse in the case of > > checkpoint_segments "number of wal files / 2 - 1" or something like > > that.... are terrible. They require arcane knowledge for the > > administrator to have a clue how to set. > > Very true. But the lack of a -1 setting for wal_keep_segments means > that if you would like to take a backup without archiving, you must > set wal_keep_segments to a value greater than or equal to the rate at > which you generate WAL segments multiplied by the time it takes you to > run a backup. If that doesn't qualify as requiring arcane knowledge, > I'm mystified as to what ever could.
LOL. Time machine required (both forward and backward time options). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
