On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 * >> wal_segment_size. >> > >> This should probably be made friendlier in some way. But it also shows >> that bigger WAL segment sizes are apparently not well-chartered >> territory lately. >> > Well, there can be multiple solutions to this problem. > 1. If somebody intends to increase wal segment size, he should > increase max_wal_size accordingly. > 2. In recovery test, we can add some delay before taking backup so > that the pending logs in the buffer > gets flushed. (Not a good solution) > 3. In CreateRestartPoint() method, we can force a XLogFlush to update > minRecoveryPoint. >
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 -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
